Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Wigan Corporation Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed.

Aberdeen Harbour (Rates) Order Confirmation Bill,

Leith Harbour and Docks Order Confirmation Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Grampian Electricity Supply Order Confirmation Bill,

Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

London Midland and Scottish Railway Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]

Consideration deferred till To-morrow.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Ely, Holland, and Norfolk) Bill [Lords],

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (South Somerset Joint Hospital District) Bill [Lords],

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Wath, Swinton, and District Joint Hospital District) Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

London and North Eastern Railway Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time; and ordered to be considered To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

COAL-PRODUCED OIL.

Mr. BATEY: 2.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the amount of oil purchased by his Department which has been
extracted from coal; and if it is intended to use more of this oil in the immediate future?

The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Captain Euan Wallace): The quantities of oil produced by the low-temperature carbonisation and hydrogenation of coal purchased by the Admiralty were:






Tons.


In 1929
…
…
…
20


1930
…
…
…
540


1931
…
…
…
224


1932
…
…
…
570


1933
…
…
…
3,025


Offers of oil of suitable quality produced from coal will always be considered provided the price is satisfactory.

Mr. BATEY: Is it intended to go on increasing the quantity?

Captain WALLACE: Yes, if the price is satisfactory.

Mr. LAWSON: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say what proportion this represents of the oil used in the Navy?

Captain WALLACE: I could not answer that question without notice.

Mr. LAWSON: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give the total tonnage?

Captain WALLACE: With notice.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Was it in 1929 that oil was first used by the Admiralty?

Captain WALLACE: I should have to have notice of that question also, but I think it is very likely.

CONTRACTS (CLYDE AREA).

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 3.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many naval contracts have been placed recently with Clyde shipbuilding and engineering firms; what is the estimated cost of the contracts; when will the work commence; and how many men will be employed on the contracts for the next two years?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lord Stanley): The orders placed in the Clyde area for hulls and machinery of His Majesty's ships under the 1931 and 1932 programmes are as follow:

For hulls and machinery of

1 Cruiser.
1 Destroyer Repair Ship.
1 Flotilla Leader.
6 Destroyers.
2 Sloops.
1 Gun Boat.

For the machinery only of

2 Cruisers.
1 Flotilla Leader.

In addition, orders have been placed for certain armament items, forgings, etc., required in connection with His Majesty's ships under construction.

The estimated cost, is about 44 million pounds.

Work is already in progress, but I have no information as to the number of men employed on Admiralty work in the area.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the Noble Lord aware that the workers on the Clyde recognise, in their abnormal position, that the Admiralty, at any rate, and the Government, have tried to do something to relieve unemployment on the Clyde?

MANDATED TERRITORIES (BRITISH NATIONALITY).

Sir COOPER RAWSON: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can give an approximate date when His Majesty's Government is likely to introduce legislation to make it possible for the residents in Tanganyika and other mandated territories to become naturalised British subjects?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I am not in a position to add anything to the replies given to my hon. Friend on the 26th April and the 3rd May.

CEYLYON (INDIAN IMMIGRANTS).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any reports of the condemnation of the Department of Labour in Ceylon by the Executive Committee of Labour, Industry, and Commerce in Ceylon with regard to the arrangements made by the department for the repatriation of Indian immigrant estate labourers; and what action is proposed to be taken in the matter?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir; I have received no report on this subject. The hon. Member is, I presume, aware that the Department of Labour is under the control of the Executive Committee referred to in the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

JAPANESE COMPETITION.

Mr. LEVY: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if, in view of the extent to which Japanese competition is ousting British trade from our Colonies and dependencies and the fact that Japan is taking little or nothing in return from these Colonies and dependencies, he will state what action he proposes to take?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to Japanese competition was explained in the Debate on the 2nd June on the Motion for the Whitson Adjournment. It is intended that the whole question, including the position in Colonial markets, should be explored in the course of the discussions which the President of the Board of Trade has initiated between representatives of United Kingdom and Japanese industry.

Mr. LEVY: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread character throughout the Empire of this competition, based on cheap labour and long hours; and can he or the President of the Board of Trade give the House and industry an assurance that effective measures will not be delayed until it is too late?

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: In considering this problem, will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to look into the allegation that is made that the Japanese, in exporting these commodities, have eliminated the middleman, whereas the middleman takes an undue share of the profits in this connection in this country?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: In answer to the first supplementary question, I repeat that the very fact that there is this competition, which is very widespread, is the reason why the President of the Board of Trade has arranged these discussions, which will cover every market. As regards the second supplementary question, I am afraid I know nothing about that subject.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: Has my right hon. Friend received very strong representations from Jamaica on this matter, and will he consider giving effect to the wishes of Jamaica?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have on very many occasions stated the Colonial position quite simply. It is that, as regards treaties, we are perfectly prepared to take whatever action those who are interested in the trade of this country consider is of advantage to them.

Mr. DAVIES: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman told me a moment or two ago that he knew nothing about the subject which I raised in my supplementary question, may I ask if he will be good enough to look into it?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That is a question which ought to be addressed to the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. LEVY: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: 23.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the state of the negotiations between his Department and the Japanese Government upon the subject of cotton textile imports into this country; and if any agreement has yet been reached upon the question of silver stabilisation, in view of the importance of this matter also in such negotiation upon imports?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE(Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): As regards the first part of the question I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Ardwick (Captain Fuller) on 4th July. As regards the second part of the question, I do not think it would be expedient to attempt to deal with the question of silver in the course of the proposed discussions between the United Kingdom and Japanese industrialists. The silver question as such is likely to come before the Monetary and Financial Commission of the World Conference very shortly.

Sir W. SUGDEN: Will my hon. and gallant Friend take guidance from the bankers in this country upon this most vital question of silver and the use of it?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: All necessary advice is being taken to deal with this question.

EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD.

Mr. LYONS: 20 and 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (1) what proposals have been made by Dominion representatives for the continuance of the Empire Marketing Board;
(2) if he will now indicate the position of the Empire Marketing Board; whether it is to cease; and what amounts have been paid towards its maintenance by this country and by Dominion countries, respectively, during the last three years?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): The Empire Marketing Board is one of the inter-Imperial agencies whose position was reviewed by the recent Imperial Committee on Economic Consultation and Co-operation. It will be seen from the Committee's Report (Cmd. 4335) that it contains no recommendation for the continuance of the Board in its existing form. It was, however, recommended that certain of the activities of the Board should be transferred to other bodies. Arrangements are being made to discuss the position arising out of the report of the Committee with the Heads of the Dominion delegations now in London. The Empire Marketing Board has been financed entirely by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, the amounts paid during the last three years being: 1930–1, £612,500; 1931–2, £549,000; 1932–3, £320,000.

Mr. LYONS: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that, if there is any further arrangement for the continuance of this or some similar idea, this country will not be called upon to pay the whole cost of the establishment?

Mr. THOMAS: I have no hesitation in giving that assurance.

TARIFF BOARDS (CANADA AND AUSTRALIA).

Mr. LYONS: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether and upon how many occasions the tariff boards of Canada and Australia have met since the ratification of the Ottawa Agreements; and which British industries have been represented and upon what dates, respectively?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I understand that the Tariff Board of Canada took up its duties on 1st May and that, although no inquiries into the duties on United Kingdom goods have yet been made, the board is proceeding as rapidly as possible with the necessary preliminary steps. I have no particulars in regard to the number of occasions upon which the Tariff Board of the Commonwealth of Australia has met since the ratification of the Agreement made at Ottawa or in regard to the number of United Kingdom industries which have exercised their rights of audience under Article 13 of that Agreement, but I understand that, since the Ottawa Agreement Act was passed in the Commonwealth of Australia at the end of November last, the Tariff Board has submitted numerous reports, which have resulted in the main in the reduction of the rates applicable to imports of the goods concerned from the United Kingdom.

Mr. LYONS: May we take it that there is as yet no concrete result from any application by any industry to the Tariff Board of either Canada or Australia, notwithstanding that we are now in July, 1933?

Viscountess ASTOR: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, unless we can get a really economic Empire, it would be better to put it off and try for world economic unity?

Mr. THOMAS: The indications from Australia, which I have already dealt with, show that they are not unmindful of the advantages. I am equally sure that Canada will respond, I hope speedily. The second supplementary question is obviously not an Imperial but an international one and does not come within my province.

Mr. PERKINS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Australian Government have increased duties in five instances against British manufactured goods?

Mr. LYONS: Is it not a fact that trade after trade in this country is complaining to-day, and rightly, of material manufactured in the Dominions coming here under cost of production, over which our Tariff Board has no check of
any kind, and is that in keeping with the spirit of the Agreement?

Mr. THOMAS: Speaking for myself, the contribution made by this country at Ottawa was a genuine and sincere attempt to develop, and rightly develop, imperial trade. We have carried out our side of the bargain both in the letter and in the spirit. There have been circumstances in the Dominions for which they were not wholly responsible, and which have created difficulties for them. I hope and believe that they will respond in the same spirit as we have responded.

Mr. LAWSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give his personal attention to this matter in order to see that the right atmosphere is created?

Mr. THOMAS: My personal attention is always directed towards creating the right atmosphere. I know of no atmosphere more congenial than when I am present.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION.

AIR SERVICES (NEWFOUNDLAND).

Mr. MANDER: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he will give particulars of the International Commission's visit to Newfoundland in regard to the establishment of an air-port service between Great Britain and the American continent?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): The hon. Member is, I think, under a misapprehension. There is no question of an international commission, but representatives of His Majesty's Governments in the United Kingdom, Canada and Newfoundland have been conferring on certain general questions affecting the possible future organisation of air services to and from Newfoundland. I am not in a position to give any more detailed information at this stage, but, to prevent any misunderstanding, I had better, perhaps, emphasise that no concrete scheme for a trans-Atlantic service is at present under discussion.

Mr. MANDER: Will the right hon. Baronet issue a statement as soon as he is in a position to do so?

Sir P. SASSOON: Yes, Sir.

WEATHER REPORTS, MANCHESTER.

Mr. PERKINS: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air at what hours it should be possible to obtain weather reports from the meteorological office at Manchester airport; and the total cost to the taxpayer of maintaining this service?

Sir P. SASSOON: The service is already in operation between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. each weekday and on Saturday mornings. It will before long be possible to obtain weather reports at any time between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. (summer time) each day, Sundays included. The net annual cost to Air Votes of maintaining the meteorological station will be approximately £1,000.

Mr. PERKINS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that last Wednesday afternoon, at twenty minutes past three, a Member of this House called up the airport for the purpose of obtaining a weather report, but was unable to get it owing to the fact that there was nobody in the office; and will he arrange that in future it shall be possible to get weather reports from Manchester as late as half-past three?

Sir P. SASSOON: I was not aware of what my hon. Friend has stated; I regret it very much. If he will give me full particulars, I will look into the matter at once, and will do my best to see that it does not occur again.

ROYAL AIR FORCE (COAL PRODUCED OIL).

Mr. BATEY: 9.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether any oil extracted from coal is being used by his Department for the Air Force?

Sir P. SASSOON: Yes, Sir. As a full-scale experiment, one Home Defence Squadron is flying solely on petrol extracted from British coal.

Mr. BATEY: Can the Minister give the approximate amount of oil that is being used?

Sir P. SASSOON: I am afraid I cannot.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Is there coordination of the inquiries undertaken by the right hon. Gentleman's Department with those undertaken by the
Admiralty and the War Office in regard to this matter?

Sir P. SASSOON: Yes, but of course the situation varies as between the different Services.

MISS DOUGLAS-PENNANT.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: 10.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what further representations have been made to him in respect of the Douglas-Pennant case; and whether he is in a position to make a statement on the matter?

Sir P. SASSOON: No recent representations on the case have been received in the Air Ministry, and I have no statement to make.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Can my right hon. Friend say, having regard to the statement in the Prime Minister's letter that there was no charge against this lady's character or efficiency, why she was dismissed in circumstances which prevent her re-engagement in the public service?

Sir P. SASSOON: I am afraid I cannot add anything to the answer which was given on behalf of the Prime Minister yesterday.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION, SCOTLAND.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 11.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that plans for the electrification of railways in the Glasgow and West of Scotland area have been prepared by the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company for some years; why these schemes are held up; and what action the Government intend to take to enable the London and North Eastern Railway Company and the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company to proceed with electrification schemes in Scotland?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): The London Midland and Scottish Railway Company have informed me that some time ago they examined the question of electrifying their suburban lines near Glasgow, but, from the figures taken out, it was evident that the electrification of these lines could not be justified on commercial grounds, and that there is no evidence that the circumstances since that time have im-
proved in favour of electrification. I am informed by the London and North Eastern Railway Company that no plans are in existence for the electrification of any of their lines in Scotland.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Arising out of the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's reply, is which he said that no plans were in hand for the electrification of the railways, may I ask if he is aware that in 1924 I got the Manager of the Glasgow Tramways Department to draw up plans for the electrification of the railways in and around Glasgow, and that those plans are now pigeon-holed in his Department; and what action he is going to take, now that he has information which he said was not in his possession before?

Mr. STANLEY: The hon. Member will realise that that was not the answer that I gave. I said that the London and North Eastern Railway Company had no plans in existence, but I said that the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company had examined the question of electrifying their suburban lines near Glasgow, and had come to the conclusion, on the figures, that it was not commercially justifiable.

MILL ROAD, BRIGHTON.

Sir C. RAWSON: 12.
asked the Minister of Transport if he can give any indication as to when the by-pass road from Pateham to Hove, which is completed up to the Dyke Road, will be continued, in view of the heavy traffic on the London-Brighton road and the assistance which this work would give to the unemployed?

Mr. STANLEY: The improvement of Mill Road is about to be completed by the widening of the existing road between the railway bridge and the London Road. I understand that the Brighton Town Council do not propose to proceed at present with the widening of the railway bridge.

TRAFFIC SIGNS.

Mr. GUY: 13.
asked the Minister of Transport if he has considered the report of the Departmental Committee on Traffic Signs; and if he will take immediate steps, in co-operation with local authorities, to carry into effect the recommendations of the committee in the interests of the safety of the highways?

Mr. LEVY: 15.
asked the Minister of Transport whether it is intended to take any action, and, if so, what, on the Report of the Road Signs Committee?

Mr. STANLEY: I have already circulated the Report of the Departmental Committee on Traffic Signs to highway authorities and intimated to them in a circular, of which I am sending my hon. Friends copies, my decisions on the major part of the Committee's recommendations. As stated in the circular, I have reserved my decision on a few points which are still under consideration. The initiative with regard to the erection of approved signs rests with the highway authorities concerned.

QUEENSEHRRY FERRY CHARGES.

Mr. JOHN WALLACE: 16.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that Queensferry ferry charges for motor ears are 10s. each journey, and for commercial motor vans 7s. 6d. per ton with a minimum charge of 10s. each journey; whether he is aware that the Tay ferry charges are 3s. 6d. single and 5s. 6d. return for a four-seater motor car, and 4s. to 6s. single and Os. to 8s. return for a commercial motor van; and whether his Department will inquire into the reason for the disparity in these charges?

Mr. STANLEY: The charges made for the use of Queensferry ferry service by motor vehicles formed the subject of representations made to me recently by the Dunfermline Town Council, and I am in communication with the London and North Eastern Railway Company on the subject. I have been informed by the company that they have under consideration a scheme for re-arranging the ferry service and that the scheme may lead to modifications in the existing charges. I will communicate with my hon. Friend when a decision has been reached.

Mr. WALLACE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this matter has been under consideration for a very long time, and that the Dunfermline Town Council are pressing it very strongly because in their opinion a decision ought long ago to have been reached?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the charge for driving your own car over Connell Bridge is 10s. and that at Corran ferry there is a charge of 2d. per ship for swimming sheep across?

Mr. STANLEY: I could not give a definite date.

MOTOR INSURANCE (THIRD PARTY RISKS).

Miss HORSBRUGH: 18.
asked the Minister of Transport what steps he is taking to enforce Part II of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, in respect of compulsory third-party insurance; if he will ascertain whether the owner of the vehicle which caused the death of Mr. Charles Mennie, of 9, McAulay Street, Dundee, was so insured; and whether a licence for his vehicle was issued without production of a certificate of insurance?

Mr. STANLEY: I understand that it is the practice of the police to ask for the production of the certificate of insurance when they have occasion to interrogate the driver of a motor vehicle, and in Regulation 11 of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks) Regulations, 1933, I have prescribed that a certificate of insurance or a certificate of security must be produced to the licensing authority when application is made for a road vehicle licence. With reference to the latter part of the question, I cannot identify the accident referred to from the particulars given, but, if my hon. Friend will furnish me with the name and address of the owner of the vehicle and its identification mark and number, I will cause inquiries to be made.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Are the licensing authority satisfied by the production of the temporary cover certificate, seeing that in some cases the policy is never completed?

Mr. STANLEY: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that question on the Paper.

Lieut.-Colonel J. SANDEMAN ALLEN: Does that apply to Post Office and Government-owned vehicles?

Mr. STANLEY: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will give me notice of that question.

TAXIMETER-CAB FARES (LONDON).

Commander MARSDEN: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now in a position to make any statement regarding the application made to him for an increase in taximeter-cab fares in London?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): As I stated in my reply to
the hon. Member for Lanark, North (Mr. Anstruther-Gray) on the 7th March last, I have met all the parties concerned in conference, and I have fully considered all the representations submitted to me and have made careful inquiries into the whole position. I have approached this problem from the point of view of the public interest, and as a result of my inquiries I have come to the conclusion that, in order to ensure that there shall be available to the public an adequate and efficient service of taxicabs, it is desirable that, while leaving the existing scale of fares undisturbed, there should be an additional hiring fee of 3d. for every hiring of a motor cab. The minimum fare for hiring a taxicab will thus be 9d. instead of 6d., and the fare for any journey, whatever its length, will be 3d. higher than at present. I have to-day made the necessary Order under the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act, 1869, but the additional hiring fee will not be payable until the 1st August.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will not the result be that the men who drive the taxicabs will get less in tips l When the fare was sixpence they usually received a Shilling, and now that the taximeter-cab owners are to receive ninepence, they will get only a threepenny tip.

HAMPTON COURT PALACE (HEATING SYSTEM).

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 19.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will consider hiding the black warming pipes in most of the State rooms at Hampton Court Palace by suitable wooden coverings with grating fronts that would be more in harmony with the surroundings or, alternatively, installing a more modern system of heating with the maximum amount of piping hidden under the floor boards?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I am advised that no really satisfactory scheme can be devised for covering up the present admittedly objectionable heating pipes in the State Rooms at Hampton Court. A scheme for the substitution of a "concealed" system of heating has been under consideration, hut, in view of the very high cost, I cannot say when, or to what extent, it may be possible to proceed with it.

PUBLIC WORKS (LOCAL LABOUR).

Sir W. SUGDEN: 24.
asked the Minister of Health what proportion of local authorities are incorporating in their specifications for contracts of work and material in their areas a clause compelling a major portion of manual labour, both skilled and unskilled, to be of local character wherever such labour is locally available; and what steps he takes to test that such procedure is followed?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): I have not the information to answer the first part of my hon. Friend's question as ordinarily I do not see the specifications for particular contracts. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Sir W. SUGDEN: Will my right hon. Friend endeavour to protect the people concerned in respect of this labour, particularly the unskilled labour, which is at present exploited by various local government authorities?

Sir H. YOUNG: As I indicated to my hon. Friend, I think that there is a misconception in regard to the basis of this question. The local authority is under no obligation to show its specifications to me.

Sir W. SUGDEN: Is it not a fact that local authorities have certain definite privileges in regard to money over which my right hon. Friend has power, and if that is so, can he not compel such local authorities to protect local unemployed unskilled labour?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Are not the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman aware that there is no such thing as unskilled labour? All labour is skilled.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

DISTRESSED AREAS (GOVERNMENT GRANT).

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how the £60,000 allocated to Scotland for the relief of distressed areas is to be distributed; which of the local authorities are to receive allocations from the grant; how much will be given to each authority; and is he aware of the dissatisfaction among public assistance authorities in Scotland regarding the inadequacy of the allocation?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): The grant of £60,000 will be distributed in accordance with a formula based on information about to be obtained from the areas concerned by means of special returns of their expenditure on poor relief, etc.
Until these returns have been received and scrutinised it is impossible to state definitely which areas will participate or the amount which each will receive.
But I am sending the hon. Member a note showing which areas are expected to share in the grant and what are their estimated shares.
As regards the last part of the question I have received representations as to the amount of money that has been voted for the purpose, but there is no foundation for the suggestion that Scotland is not getting a fair share of the grant and I cannot see my way to ask Parliament to increase it.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the latter part of my question:
Is he aware of the dissatisfaction among public assistance authorities in Scotland regarding the inadequacy of the allocation?

Sir G. COLLINS: My countrymen are always dissatisfied with the amount of money allocated.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: rose
—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SPEAKER: The House is getting into a bad habit in regard to asking supplementary questions.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I have only asked one supplementary question, and these people are asking four or five supplementary questions every day.

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member shall have one more.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The supplementary question I wish to put is this. Is the Secretary of State for Scotland aware that it comes very ill from him to state in the British House of Commons that his fellow-countrymen are never satisfied?

Sir G. COLLINS: My reply was based on the fact that I am a Scottish subject, and that is why I gave expression to what I considered to be Scottish views.

PUBLIC WORKS LOAN INTEREST (FIFESHIRE).

Mr. J. WALLACE: 30.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Public Works Loan Board declines to revise its interest rates on loans issued to small burghs in Fife-shire or to permit those burghs to repay loans at earlier dates than those originally arranged unless a premium is paid; and whether, in view of the low rate of interest now prevailing on Government stocks, he will direct the Public Works Loan Board to reconsider their attitude?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I think my hon. Friend has failed to notice that advances by the Public Works Loan Board to local authorities are long-term loans. It is for this reason that premature repayment of such advances can be permitted only subject to a premium. In these circumstances the answer to the last part of the question must be in the negative.

Mr. WALLACE: Is the hon. Member aware that on an application being made to the Public Works Loan Board for consideration under the terms mentioned in the question the Board referred the applicants to the Treasury as being the only authority that can at the present time give them relief from the higher rates of interest?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I think my hon. Friend appreciates that the Government's liability to pay interest on local loan stock is a continuing one and is not affected by the current rate of interest on gilt-edged securities. The Government have to meet their interest and cannot make concessions to local authorities, otherwise, they could not provide the funds wherewith to meet the interest.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Will not the Treasury reconsider this matter, having regard to the incidence of these loans upon the distressed areas, including areas in Scotland, England and Wales?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I thought I had made it plain that the interest can only be reduced by asking the taxpayer to make a direct subsidy.

SEX EQUALITY.

Mr. MANDER: 27.
asked the Home Secretary whether the Government propose to introduce a measure giving equal rights to men and women, with a view to facilitating the drawing up of a general treaty on the subject through the League of Nations?

Sir J. GILMOUR: His Majesty's Government has no such proposal under consideration and as at present advised they do not think it practicable or desirable to attempt any extension of the general affirmation in the Sex Disqualification Removal Act of 1919.

Mr. MANDER: Am I to understand from the reply that the Government are not disposed to give equal rights to men and women?

Viscountess ASTOR: Do not the Government really think that it is about time England took the lead in this question of equality among the sexes?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have nothing to add to the answer which I have given.

Viscountess ASTOR: The answer was not very satisfactory.

NEWSPAPER COMPETITIONS (PROSECUTIONS).

Sir J. NALL: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the fact that Allied Newspapers have been summoned to appear at the Manchester city police court, on Monday next, on charges connected with racing competitions, notwithstanding that the competitions in question have already been withdrawn from these newspapers; and whether it is proposed to take similar action against London newspapers publishing in Manchester, which have also been conducting racing competitions and have now withdrawn them following upon warnings given in London by the City and Metropolitan Police?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am informed by the Chief Constable of Manchester that on the 27th April last the Allied Newspapers Ltd. were warned that the racing competition which they were conducting was considered to contravene the provisions of the Betting Acts and that if the competition was not discontinued pro-
ceedings would be instituted. This group of newspapers informed the police to the effect that they would welcome proceedings and intended to treat the case as a test case. As the competition was not discontinued proceedings were instituted and summonses were issued on the 3rd instant. The London newspapers circulating in Manchester who were conducting similar competitions were warned at the same time by the Manchester police under the impression that the coupons would be received at the Manchester offices of the newspapers, but it was subsequently ascertained that the coupons had to be sent to the London offices which were outside the jurisdiction of the Manchester police. In reply to the last part of the question, as I have previously informed the House, the responsibility for enforcing the law rests with the Chief Officers of Police. I am informed that it is not proposed to institute proceedings against the London newspapers, who immediately discontinued these competitions on being warned by the police.

Sir J. NALL: Is it not a fact that the Manchester newspaper only followed the others in this practice, and that they were among the first to withdraw? Will my right hon. Friend take steps to ensure that this kind of flagrant discrimination ceases?

Mr. J. P. MORRIS: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why, if it was sufficient to issue warnings to London newspapers published in Manchester, it was deemed necessary to prosecute Allied Newspapers, and does he not know that after the warnings were issued racing coupons were continued in London newspapers published in Manchester, although they were discontinued by the Manchester newspapers? Does he not think that this discriminatory action is both invidious and unfair?

Mr. LYONS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the terms he has indicated as being the terms of the warning are the same given to every newspaper in every particular case?

Mr. PIKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the summonses issued against the "Daily Dispatch" newspaper of Manchester are in respect of the same lottery with regard to which summonses were taken out against the
"Sheffield Independent" and the "Sheffield Daily Telegraph," that the Sheffield daily newspapers have already appeared before the court and have been fined and have asked the magistrates to state a case, and does he not think that the summons in this particular case might be withdrawn until the magistrates in the preliminary case in respect of the same lottery have stated a case?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As I have explained to the House, the matter is in the hands of the various police authorities. In the case of Manchester, when the notice was given it was evident that the newspapers concerned said that they desired that the matter should be tested, and there is no alternative. I think that is perfectly clear. On the notice being given through the Manchester police to the London newspapers, it was ascertained that the coupons were not returnable to Manchester but to London. The matter therefore came under the police authorities in London, either the City Police or the Metropolitan Police, and in that case, warning having been given, notice was taken of that fact, and the papers have behaved properly. That is not the case in the other instance. As far as I am informed there is nothing improper, and the matter must go forward. I understand that the case is to be heard on the 24th and is therefore sub judice. I have nothing further to say on the matter.

Sir J. NALL: I beg to give notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory position disclosed by the answer of the right hon. Gentleman I propose to raise this matter on the Ajournment.

WASHINGTON HOURS CONVENTION.

Mr. MANDER: 31.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that an Act has recently been promulgated by Italy enabling that country to ratify unconditionally the Washington Hours Convention; and whether the British Government proposes to take similar action?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY of the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): My right hon. Friend is aware that an Act regulating hours of work has been promulgated in Italy but he is not in a position to express an
opinion on its terms in relation to the Washington Hours Convention. The position of the British Government with regard to the Washington Hours Convention remains as explained to my hon. Friend in the reply given to him on 27th October, 1932.

Mr. MANDER: Is not this a good opportunity to carry out the well-known policy of the Government, always to follow and never to lead?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand that the Government are in no way going to change their minds?

Mr. HUDSON: Not as regards the Washington Hours Convention.

Mr. WILLIAMS: When will there be a possibility of the Government considering this problem?

Mr. THORNE: Can the hon. Member say whether the Government have definitely decided not to ratify the Washington Hours Convention? Is he not aware that Governments have been juggling with this question for about seven years?

JUVENILE UNEMPLOYMENT, WEST LEYTON.

Sir W. SUGDEN: 32.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will adjust the area department dealing with the unemployed of West Leyton so that it may be possible to get details of youths who, after leaving school, have for several years been unable to obtain employment; and will he consider the creation of a voluntary local committee, composed of school principals and representatives of employers and trades unions, who will consider the local conditions of industry and advise the Minister and the parents of the youths in question upon their future careers?

Mr. HUDSON: The local education authority are responsible for dealing with questions of juvenile employment in the whole of the borough of Leyton, and have set up a juvenile employment committee to supervise the work of the Juvenile Employment Bureau, the composition of which is in accordance with my hon. Friend's suggestions. I am informed that in this area it is only in very exceptional cases that youths remain out of employment
for any considerable time after leaving school, but if there is any suggestion which my hon. Friend wishes to make in this connection it will of course be carefully considered.

Sir W. SUGDEN: If I bring to my hon. Friend details of a practical scheme which is dominantly and permanently industrial rather than academic and theoretical, will he consider an application in respect of the youth of Leyton?

Viscountess ASTOR: Would the Government consider seriously before the House breaks up some scheme for dealing with the tragic question of juvenile unemployment? Hay e they a scheme, and will they cease asking Members of Parliament to bring something forward, when they know that the country is waiting for a lead?

Mr. HUDSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative.

TOTALISATORS.

Mr. CLARRY: 33.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the dissatisfaction throughout the country in respect of the differences in the position with respect to the operation of totalisators on horse and pony racecourses and greyhound racecourses, respectively, he will assure the House that time will be found at an early opportunity for a Debate on this subject?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): I regret that I can hold out no hope of an early opportunity being found for the discussion of this subject.

Mr. CLARRY: Has the right hon. Gentleman the question of these anomalies well in his mind?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the dissatisfaction is almost wholly confined to the promoters?

HOUSE OF COMMONS (STANDING ORDERS).

Mr. J. P. MORRIS: 34.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider proposing the appointment of a Select Committee of this House to examine and report on the advisability of amending
the Standing Orders and Rules of the House, whether by imposing a time limit for speeches or otherwise, so as to give to back-bench Members greater opportunities of participating in important Debates?

Mr. BALDWIN: I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by the appointment of a Select Committee to consider imposing a time limit on the length of hon. Members' speeches. I venture to suggest to the House that the solution rests with the right hon. and hon. Members themselves and, in this connection, I would commend to their notice the remarks made by Mr. Speaker on 3rd November, 1931, and also in reply to a question put to him on the 2nd June, 1932.

Mr. MORRIS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is grave discontent among his own back-bench supporters caused by certain right hon. Gentlemen speaking too long and too frequently, that such discontent is not conducive to consistent enthusiasm for diligent application to Parliamentary duties, and will he, in the light of this information, please reconsider his decision?

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government have any control over the right hon. Gentleman in question?

Mr. BALDWIN: In regard to that my withers are completely unwrung, I have been a Member of the House for many years and I have never known a period, even when I was a back bencher, when I did not share entirely and fully the complaint made by the hon. Member.

Sir BASIL PETO: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not think that the new arrangement whereby in the OFFICIAL REPORT the time of the Commencement of every speech is printed before the hon. Member's name will, if it is given a fair chance, conduce to shortening speeches?

Mr. BALDWIN: I do not think that would be the case. It seems to me that the longer the speech the better pleased the constituents.

Mr. MORRIS: If I bring evidence in support of the large extent to which my proposals are supported by back bench
Members in this House, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision?

Mr. BALDWIN: I do not think it is a case of reconsidering my decision. I am perfectly well aware of the feeling and always have been aware of it. The only remedy, if this House is to be a House of free debate, rests with the House itself.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not a fact that some speeches seem very long but are very short?

Mr. HALES: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member rise to a point of Order?

Mr. HALES: Yes. I should like to ask, speaking as one of those who suffer from this disability, whether a vote of the House could not be taken on the question?

DON VALLEY DRAINAGE SCHEME.

Mr. TOM WILLIAMS: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that the Ouse Catchment Board have come to the conclusion that the scheme for draining the Don Valley will have to be abandoned as the Government offer to subscribe £10,000 towards the total estimated cost of £506,000 is inadequate, the possibility of increasing the Government grant will be considered prior to the next meeting of the board on the 26th instant in view of the grave danger of further floods?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend who has been in communication with the clerk of the catchment board is informed that the hon. Member's information is not correct. No decision has been reached by the catchment board.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the main river subcommittee of the catchment board came to a decision on Monday, and will his right hon. Friend be willing to meet a deputation of members drawn from the Ouse Catchment Board to put the case before him?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I will communicate the hon. Member's wishes to my right hon. Friend.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Proceedings on the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Baldwin.]

BILLS REPORTED.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (MAIDSTONE AND STOCKTON-ON-TEES) BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WREXHAM AND EAST DENBIGHSHIRE WATER) BILL [Lords].

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LUTON WATER) BILL [Lords].

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (MID-GLAMORGAN WATER BOARD) BILL [Lords].

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (CHEPPING WYCOMBE) BILL [Lords].

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WATH, SWINTON, AND DISTRICT JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (SOUTH SOMERSET JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL [Lords].

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (ELY, HOLLAND, AND NORFOLK) BILL [Lords].

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

SAMARITAN FREE HOSPITAL FOR WOMEN BILL [Lords].

Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill to be read the Third time.

SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS BILL [Lords].

Reported, with an Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

GROSVENOR ESTATE BILL [Lords].

Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time.

KNUTSFORD LIGHT AND WATER BILL [Lords].

THE MALDENS AND COOMBE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Slaughter of Animals Bill, with Amendments.

SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 155.]

Orders of the Day — ROAD AND RAIL TRAFFIC BILL.

As amended [in the Standing Committee), considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Power and duties of certifying officers.)

A certifying officer appointed under section sixty-nine of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, shall have the like powers and dirties under sections fifteen and sixteen of this Act with respect to goods vehicles as an examiner has, and accordingly in those sections (except in sub-section (7) and (9) of the said section fifteen) any reference to an examiner shall be construed as including a reference to such a certifying officer.—[Mr. Stanley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.34 p.m.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Under this Bill and under the Road Traffic Act of 1930 there will be examiners and certifying officers, to whom appeals will be made from the examiners. The certifying officers will be those appointed under the Road Traffic Act of 1930. Under that Act they have all the powers of an examiner and the sole object of this new Clause is to give these officials the right to act as examiners under this Bill as well.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Review of agreed charges and exceptional rates competing with coastwise shipping.)

(1) In this section the expression "charge" (except in the phrase "agreed charge") includes any charge (whether described as a charge, or as a rate, or otherwise) which is made by any carrier in respect of the carriage of merchandise.

(2) If at any time a representation is nude to the Minister by any body of persons who, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, are properly representative of the interests of persons engaged in the coastwise shipping business (in this section referred to as "coastal carriers") that any agreed charges or exceptional rates which are being made or charged by a railway company in competition with coastal carriers—

(a) place coastal carriers at an undue or unfair disadvantage; or
(b) are inadequate, having regard to the cost of affording the service or services in respect of which they are made or charged;
1822
the Minister shall consult with the Board of Trade upon the matter and if, after such consultation, it appears to him prima facie that the complaint is one which in the national interests should be investigated, he shall refer the matter to the Railway Rates Tribunal for investigation and review.

(3) Upon any reference to the Tribunal under the preceding sub-section, the Tribunal shall hold an inquiry and investigate all matters which appear to it to be relevant, including the circumstances in which the agreed charges or exceptional rates complained of are being made or charged by the railway company, and their adequacy or inadequacy, having regard to the cost of affording the service or services in respect of which they are made or charged, and shall have regard to the charges for the carriage of merchandise by any route which is in competition with the route to which any agreed charge or exceptional rate complained of applies, whether any such charge is payable in respect of carriage by rail, by sea, or by road, or in respect of carriage partly by one of those forms of transport and partly by another of them, or by all of them.

For the purposes of an inquiry under this section the Tribunal shall have the like powers of compelling the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents and of administering oaths as it has for the purposes of its functions under the Railway Acts, 1927.

(4) If, after examining all witnesses whose evidence it considers to be necessary and after giving all parties whom it considers to be concerned an opportunity of calling witnesses and being heard, the, Tribunal is of opinion that, having regard to all the circumstances, any agreed charges or exceptional rates made or charged by the railway company in competition with coastal carriers—

(a) place coastal carriers at an undue or unfair disadvantage in the competition; or
(b) are inadequate, having regard to the cost of affording the service or services in respect of which they are made or charged;

and that, in either case, the action of the railway company is by reason of its prejudicial effect upon the interests of coastwise shipping undesirable in the national interests, the Tribunal may by order cancel or vary all or any of those agreed charges or exceptional rates, or may make such other order upon the railway company as in the circumstances of the case it thinks proper, and any Order of the Tribunal may be expressed to operate for so long only as any conditions specified therein with respect to charges on competitive routes, or otherwise, are satisfied.

Any such order may, notwithstanding any provisions of this Act, be made to take, effect at such date as the Tribunal thinks fit.

(5) The Tribunal, on an application made by the railway company, or on a subsequent application made under sub
section (2) of this section, may cancel or vary any order made under the preceding sub-section.

(6) There shall be constituted a panel (hereinafter referred to as the "shipping panel") consisting of six persons nominated by the President of the Board of Trade, after consultation with such persons as he may consider to be properly representative of the interests of coastal carriers, and for the purposes of the powers and duties of the Tribunal under this section there shall be added to the Tribunal one additional member selected by the Minister from the shipping panel, and sub-section (4) of section twenty-four of the Railways Act, 1921, shall not apply.

Sub-sections (2) and (5) of the said section twenty-four shall apply in relation to a member of the shipping panel as they apply in relation to a member of the general panel.

(7) Upon any inquiry under this section the President of the Tribunal shall, notwithstanding anything in section twenty-five of the Railways Act, 1921, have a second or casting vote.

(8) Section thirty-nine of the Railways Act, 1921, shall have effect as if the words "shipping or," and the words "coastwise shipping or," were omitted therefrom.—[Mr. Stanley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.37 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause deals with, perhaps, the most important subject the House will have to consider during the Report stage. One of the main features of the Bill is a modification of the methods by which rates may be quoted by railway companies. This new method is known as the agreed charge, and, although it will be admitted that any new arrangement which will lead to reduced rates being quoted to traders is of general advantage, certain fears have been expressed from two different quarters with regard to this method. There is, first, the case of the trader who fears that one of his rivals may get the advantage of this new arrangement and that he may fail to secure it, and thus be at a disadvantage. That point was satisfactorily dealt with in Committee. However, objection was taken from another angle, from the angle of the competitor, the person or industry, providing alternative means of transport in competition with the railways. They saw in this new power of the railways to charge lower rates an increase of the competitive power of the railways and, therefore, a danger to their traffic. This new
Clause is designed to meet a complaint of that kind by the coastwise shipping industry.
It was stressed in Committee, and no one in the House will disagree, that the coastwise shipping industry is of national importance. Whatever view we may hold as to the necessity of maintaining the profits of a particular individual concern in the coastwise shipping industry, we must agree that a situation which might lead to the disappearance of the coastwise shipping industry would be prejudicial to our national interests. We were all agreed that in some way or other steps should be taken to see that there is no possibility of such a situation arising and to allay as far as reasonable and practicable the fears expressed by the coastwise shipping industry.
The particular form of the Amendment which was discussed in Committee was of giving to those engaged in coastwise shipping an opportunity to appear before the Railway Rates Tribunal, whenever application was made for approval of one of these agreed charges, and object to the granting of the application, and, if successful, to get the new agreed charge stopped. I took the line in Committee, and I take it still, that the method proposed was the wrong one. However strong the case of the coastwise shipping industry might have been for some right of appearance of that kind if they in their turn were subject to some control of their rates, as the railways are, and if they in their turn were subject to interference of this kind on behalf of the railway companies, I held that that claim could not be sustained when in fact it was only the railway company which was under these restrictions, while their competitors in coastwise shipping could reduce their charges as it suited them without any possibility of complaint being raised by the railway companies. I took the view that this House is not concerned in protecting individual interests of the shipping industry. All that we are concerned with is the protection of coastwise shipping as a national concern. Therefore, what we have to guard against is not one particular rate which may or may not prejudicially affect one particular owner of coastwise shipping, but a rate or series of rates which constitute a real threat to coastwise shipping as a national industry.
I propose, therefore, as an alternative to the method which was discussed in Committee the method which this House had already adopted when the Railways Act of 1921 was passed. Exactly the same fears were expressed for the coastwise shipping at that time, and in consequence Section 39 of the 1921 Act was passed by this House. It gave to the coastwise shipping industry the power, through the Minister of Transport, to get their case stated before the Railway Rates Tribunal, and, if the case was proved, to have certain grievances redressed. It seemed to me that the course which the House adopted in 1921 was the proper course for us to-day. I therefore promised in Committee that I would consider any Amendment of Section 39, which it was alleged by the coastwise shipping industry was inoperative because of the way it had been drafted and was therefore under present circumstances not fulfilling its purpose; I promised to consider any Amendment of that Section which would give to the coastwise shipping industry an opportunity of stating a case to the Tribunal, in any circumstance where the existence of that industry is really threatened, and which at the same time would not allow opportunity to those engaged in coastwise shipping to enter into a series of merely obstructive objections to the new power which I, and I think the Committee as a whole, desire to give to the railway companies in this matter.
I am afraid I have taken some time in describing the history of this new Clause, but it was necessary to do so in order that the House might understand the reason for its appearance on the Paper to-day. I came to the conclusion, when I studied the matter, that mere verbal Amendment of Section 39 would not be sufficient. I have, therefore, entirely recast the Section. Although I maintain the machinery to some extent, have to a large extent altered the remedies which may be sought and the objections which may be raised. It will be possible for the coastwise shipping industry, if they feel that any rate or rates which are exceptional, or the new agreed charges, place coastal carriers at an unfair disadvantage or are inadequate to the cost of affording the service and—this is important, and it applies to both cases—that the complaint is one which
the national interest requires to be investigated, then through me it will be possible for that complaint to go to the Rates Tribunal and to receive consideration.
The grounds of application are as I have stated. It will be necessary for the coastwise shipping industry to make to me a prima facie case upon those lines before I am satisfied that it will be possible for me to remit the matter to the tribunal. In giving to the tribunal some indication of what matters they are entitled to consider and should consider in dealing with the application, it has been necessary to cast the net rather wide. Hon. Members will notice that one of the matters to which the attention of the tribunal is directed is the competitive charge not only in respect of carriage by rail or sea, but also in respect of carriage by road.
I want the House to realise that what we are concerned with alone is the danger here to the coastwise shipping industry. It' is clearly not right for this House to give to the Rates Tribunal the power to interfere in a case where it can be shown that the removal of these special rates by the railways would not in fact have the result of turning that trade to the coastwise shipping, but would merely have the result of giving it to another competitor, the road interest. Therefore, we have included that among the considerations to which the tribunal may direct their attention. It will be necessary for the tribunal, before they can take any action, to be satisfied upon one of two alternative facts, either that the rates to which objection is taken have placed coastal carriers at an undue or unfair disadvantage, or that they are inadequate, having regard to the cost of affording the service and—this applies to both or either case—that the action of the railway company by reason of its prejudicial effect on the interests of coastwise shipping, is undesirable in the national interest. Those words make plain what the duty of the tribunal is, what are the kinds of dangers against which we propose to protect the coastwise shipping industry, and the limitation we intend to place upon mere frivolous objections taken by one privileged competitor, who is under no restrictions of law whatever, against another competitor whom this House has for many years kept under the most stringent regulations.
A few words are necessary with regard to the constitution of the Railway Rates Tribunal for the purpose of applications of this kind. The Tribunal is normally constituted of one member who is experienced in railway business, one member experienced in commercial affairs, and an independent chairman of great legal standing to complete the body. Of course when a man becomes a member of the Tribunal he is supposed to act, and always does act, in a completely judicial capacity, and no one is entitled to or would regard himself as being there as a representative of an interest. But it seemed to me essential that in dealing with these particular cases of coastwise shipping there should be added to the Tribunal someone who had a special knowledge of the difficulties and the machinery of the coastwise shipping trade.
It is for that reason that I have, for the purposes of these applications and of these applications alone, added to the ordinary Tribunal a fourth member to be drawn from the panel of those who are conversant with coastwise shipping needs. The formation of a committee of four inevitably creates difficulty with regard to decisions. It is essential that there should be no possibility of an equal division of the Tribunal which would leave a question unsettled. I, therefore, have adopted, though with some reluctance, the rather clumsy expedient of giving the independent chairman a casting vote, which means that in no circumstances can there be an equal division and consequent lack of decision. That method has the merit that wherever there is a conflict of opinion on the Tribunal the final decision will always rest with the independent chairman.
I think the proposed new Clause meets the real fears expressed by the coastwise shipping industry. It meets their ease to the extent and only to the extent to which this House is entitled to meet it and that is by seeking to protect coastwise shipping as one of our great national assets. On the other hand, although I understand that the representatives of the railway companies will feel obliged to express their views upon it, I feel that the procedure now proposed is such that it will not be possible for a competitor
merely to obstruct and prevent the smooth working of the new advantage which we are giving to the railways—an advantage with which all of us, I think, are in agreement. Although this new Clause is presented entirely on my own responsibility and is not the result of agreement or compromise between the parties, I believe that it will in practice satisfy the parties chiefly concerned and will be in the interests of the country as tending to preserve an important national asset.

3.54 p.m.

Sir JOHN SANDEMAN ALLEN: I should like before dealing with the proposed new Clause to say how much those of us who have been engaged on this Bill appreciate the way in which the Minister has dealt with the various difficulties that have arisen from time to time during its consideration. He has devoted all his attention to those difficulties, many of which on being met were found to be exaggerated and while some difficulties still remain in the minds of certain people, we can never expect everybody to be satisfied with everything. We particularly appreciate the great care and study which the Minister has bestowed on the very grave question which is dealt with in the new Clause. I am sure that this House is determined at all costs to maintain the integrity and standing and the Imperial importance of British shipping. I am sure we should all oppose anything calculated to impair the strength and value of our shipping to the nation and I know that the Minister shares that view.
When it comes to dealing with coastal shipping and attempting to distinguish it from British shipping generally, my first point is that it is not so distinguishable. Coastal shipping is part and parcel of the British mercantile marine service and is essential for the manning and maintenance of that service. Coastal shipping is invaluable in connection with our trade. In the loading and discharging of ocean-going steamers the coastal shipping can go right alongside and can carry goods at the lowest possible price. I only mention these facts as emphasising what the Minister has said that there is no desire or intention to interfere with coastal shipping generally. Now we come to the actual difficulty which has arisen
under this Bill. That difficulty arises in two ways. The railway companies naturally have absorbed a very large share of the carriage of goods and passengers which in former times was done by coastal shipping. Now the road services have come in and absorbed a great deal of the traffic with which the railways have hitherto dealt. Therefore we have had to consider the question of controlling competition as between all these various classes of transport.
As to road transport and rail transport, both being land services, they start and finish more or less on even terms, but the case of shipping is different from either. In a sense, coastal shipping is competitive with these other forms of transport, but in another sense it is not. It is to some extent in partnership with both the railways and the roads. It cannot compete in regard to the inland carriage of goods and it is dependent upon these other means of transport for its traffic. I emphasise that point because I want to guard Against the idea—I know it is unnecessary to guard against it in the case of the Minister—that coastal shipping can be compared with the road services in regard to the question of competition. Coastal shipping has to work in with the road services and with the railways. There is another difficulty. Coastal shipping serves not only the ordinary docks owned by public or private authorities, but also serves ports in which the railway companies own the docks. They are also dependent upon the railways in connection with short hauls, which make a big difference when we are considering the relative cost of carriage by coastwise steamer and by rail. Thus there are several special factors to be taken into consideration and coastal shipping stands apart from road and rail in relation to the question of competition.
There is another point which may be borne in mind. It is a curious anomaly that in this country while we have a Ministry of Transport—presided over at present by a Minister who thoroughly understands and appreciates the difficulties and duties of that Department—that Ministry has no authority over coastal shipping, though the Minister has to study its needs in relation to those modes of transport which come immediately and directly under his responsibility. It is proposed under the new Clause that the
Board of Trade, which is the Department responsible for shipping, shall take a certain part in advising in regard to this question. Speaking on behalf of the coastal shipping interests, I wish to say that we appreciate the manner in which the Minister has studied all these problems and the readiness with which he has recognised the grave difficulties in which the industry may be placed.
The proposed new Clause is one which the coastal shipping interest and shipping interests generally—because all are affected—are prepared to accept. They feel that the proposed method is one which might well be tried. There is no question that the old provision dealing with this matter to which reference has been made has proved valueless. It was, no doubt, intended for the protection of shipping, but whenever any case arose which required putting it into operation, that provision was found to be useless. The Minister has wisely gone to the root of the question and has produced a new Clause which apparently will give the industry some protection when the necessity arises. On the question of agreed rates and charges it is possible that some of the agreed rates may affect coastal shipping. That is why attention was called to that matter in Committee. I am satisfied that the way in which the Minister has dealt with that subject correlates the agreed charges and the exceptional rates with the national interest. There can be no question of unnecessary annoyance to the railway companies, or unnecessary waste of time. If it is proved to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade and the Minister himself that the public interests are affected by these charges, they will be considered by the tribunal, properly constituted, who will be able to look at the matter impartially.
I feel that in these circumstances, and in view of the time already spent on this matter, I need say no more on behalf of those interests for whom I can speak, except to thank the Minister for chat he has done, and to say that the coastal shipping industry is prepared to meet this matter, as it always is, I believe, in the general interest and in a spirit of co-operation and combination, and we trust and believe the railway companies will do the same, so that instead of there being any trouble about this matter, the result of the arrangement will be closer
working between the transport industries. Therefore, I beg to support the Clause.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. MACMILLAN: I should like to begin by adding my tribute to the care and courtesy with which the Minister has met, all sides in this part of the Bill, and, indeed, in all parts of the Bill while it was in progress in Committee. If I may say a word of explanation, I do not think that since I have been a Member of the House it has been my duty ever to speak on behalf of any particular interest, but on this occasion it may be for the convenience of the House if I say as a railway director what is the attitude of the railway companies towards the proposed new Clause under discussion. It would be an exaggeration to say that the railway companies welcome this Clause. It is, as the Minister told us, in no sense an agreed Clause, but, at the same time, the railway companies feel, and those who speak for them here feel, that, taking into consideration all the circumstances and and surroundings of the matter, and the history of this particular controversy, we do not propose to offer any Parliamentary opposition to the Clause.
At the same time, there are some considerations which we think it only right and fair to put before the House, because they are, to some extent, misunderstood in the House, and, we think, in the country. After all, I think it is not untrue to say that the whole history of the Parliamentary control of railway rates has been a control exercised in order to protect the users of the roads, to protect the consumers, to see that there is no unfair discrimination between one trader and another. I think that in Section 39 of the Railways Act, 1921, there appears for the first time in railway legislation a new point of view. That Section was for the purpose of protecting, not a user, not a consumer of railway service, but a competitive form of transport which might be held to be altogether destructive. We recognise that that Section has introduced a new principle. It is a principle which, we think, we can use and develop to some extent to the advantage of the railways in this and in future legislation, but the Clause before the House is, in effect, merely an extension, put in different words, perhaps put in better words, from the point of view of the shipping Industry,
of the principle that underlay Section 39 of the Act of 1921. In that sense, of course, we accept it, and we trust that the words do not go further than that intention, and that what is here referred to is not the effect of some particular exception in some individual instance, but, as the Minister himself said in Committee, the effect of a broad policy undermining the whole coastal shipping industry in such a way as to be destructive of their interests. The Clause, of course, if it means that, is a very different proposition from saying that every individual item of our business when we make a rebate is to be subject to review.
Of course, there is a somewhat Gilbertian element in this situation. There are to-day three competing forms of transport for this traffic—rails, merchant shipping and roads. Two of them are absolutely free to quote whatever rates they like on any class of goods. The other is bound, and it is somewhat anomalous that it should not be the transport system which is bound that is protesting against unfair competition. It is those which are free. I think that anyone coming from outside and observing the situation, would think that it would be the other way round, and I should like to make some remark on what my hon. Friend said as to the actual history of the relations between these two forms of transport. I do not think it is the fact that there has been any policy on the part of the railway companies to undercut in any unfair or undue way so as to destroy the coastal shipping business. In point of fact, if the profits earned are any criterion, I observe that the large coastal shipping companies during the last seven or eight years have earned very substantial profits, and paid very substantial dividends, ranging from 5 to 15 per cent. on the capital employed. I am sure that those who have been encouraged, under various Trustee Acts and otherwise, to put their money into railway companies in the past would have been glad to have had such successful results from their investments.
Moreover, the figures of transport show that the tendency has been the other way. The tendency has not been to draw traffic from the merchant shipping on to the railways, but rather in the other direction, and, what is really much more important for the future, I think that, in justice to those who are responsible
for managing the railway systems, it ought to be said that they have consistently attempted to develop transport on a complementary rather than upon a wholly competitive basis. In 1929, for instance, they entered into an agreement with, I think, 80 per cent. of the coastal shipping companies rather on the lines of the recent agreement come to between the railway companies and the Canal Association for the purpose of setting up local conferences and meetings with the whole object of co-ordinating the transport system, and avoiding uneconomic or unreasonable competition, and they are at present engaged in negotiating for the extension and strengthening of such an agreement.
Therefore, I hope the House and country will not suppose that, in point of fact, this Clause is introduced by the Minister because there has been, or can be, any charge against railway companies that they have been doing things which this Clause is intended to prevent. That is not the case, and we do feel that it is only just to those who control these great undertakings, that this Clause should not appear to have been made necessary by any act upon their part in the past which deserves such reprobation. Of course, from the point of view of the future, we realise that, to some extent, this is a stopgap Bill, and perhaps this is a stopgap Clause. There are bound to be future developments in order to regulate more completely these competing forms of transport. But we wish to lay particular emphasis in the fact that, while the others are free to quote what rates they like, we are still bound by statutory obligations, although Clause 30 gives the railway great advantages which they have not previously had. Therefore, although we cannot agree in the sense of accepting this Clause, which if it were used as a precedent for future legislation might be dangerous—if it were used within the present system operating in the transport world while we remained tied and the others were free to open competition, this Clause might be very dangerous to us; at the same time, taking all the circumstances into consideration, we do not propose to ask the House to divide against it, and we recognise that if it is merely an extension of the principle underlying Section 39 of the Act of 1921, we are bound to that extent to accept it.

Mr. DAVID MASON: The hon. Member speaks of "we." Is he speaking as a Member of Parliament?

Mr. MACMILLAN: The hon. Member, perhaps, was not in the House when I said I thought it might be for the convenience of the House that I should state as a railway director, what was the view of the railway companies on this Clause. Perhaps at this stage the general view of the railways should be made known. The railways, of course, have in this matter, as in other matters, a duty both to the public and to their shareholders. We are sometimes attacked because the rates are too high, and at other times because they are too low. Last night an hon. Member in this House made an attack on one of the great railways because it charged too much. The whole object of this Clause is to prevent them from charging too little. One might think, from what fell from the hon. Gentleman, that there is an insinuation that because the railways control certain docks and harbours, they are able to use that power to the disadvantage of coastal shipping. That is not the case, because coastal shipping, in this instance, is a user, and absolutely protected by all the conditions which make it necessary for railways owning docks to charge the same rates to all the users of their system. But we are also frequently attacked, especially by the independent dock and harbour authorities, on the ground that the charges made are too low, and are unfairly attracting traffic which ought to go to the independent docks. So that we find ourselves in the peculiar position of a double attack both on the ground of dearness and of cheapness.
We recognise, as I say, that this Clause is the result of a Debate which we had in Committee, when the Minister definitely pledged himself that he would go thoroughly into the matter with a view to the re-statement of the Section in the Act of 1921, and although I think, on the strict logic of the matter, we might be justified in an attitude of definite opposition to this Clause, yet, taking the wider point of view, I think we may take the attitude—while this is in no sense an agreed Clause—of not asking the House to divide against it, and of determining in the future to exploit, if we can, this new principle in regard to unfair and
uneconomic competition in other directions than merely those of shipping.

4.15 p.m.

Sir GERVAIS RENTOUL: As I had the privilege of moving an Amendment in Committee on this matter, and of endeavouring to impress its importance upon the Minister, I trust at no undue length, I also should like to express what I believe is the satisfaction of the coastal shipping industry that the Minister has seen his way to table this Clause. It certainly goes a long way towards removing the legitimate apprehensions that were felt by the coastal shipping industry and expressed during the Committee stage, but with regard to a long and complicated Clause of this kind, we can only say that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and it is difficult to declare in advance that any Clause will be completely satisfactory in meeting the objections raised until it has been tested by practical experience. I certainly should like to express my agreement with the Minister that this is a much more satisfactory way of dealing with the matter than a mere amendment of Section 39 of the Railways Act, 1921.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Macmillan), speaking on behalf of the railway companies, said that while they did not wholly welcome this Clause, they did not intend to oppose it, and that in any event it must not be thought that they were admitting in any way that there was justification for the fears which were entertained and expressed by the coastal shipping industry. Well, I do not know about that. I did venture to give the Committee a few instances of cases where the rates had been cut to an altogether extraordinary extent between places where they happened to compete with coastal shipping. For instance, between London and Bristol the railway companies cut the standard rate by 62 per cent., between London and Leith by 55 per cent., between Liverpool and London by 54 per cent., between London and Hull by 51 per cent., between London and Edinburgh by 50 per cent., and between London and Glasgow by 51 per cent. It is certainly a little difficult to discover any similar cuts in other parts of the country and between places where they do not directly compete with coastal shipping; and it is only
fair to make that comment in reply to the statement of my hon. Friend.
Owing to the immense size of the railway units, the coastal trade, a very much smaller industry, is hound to be apprehensive. Therefore, while thanking the Minister for his action, I think it only right to stress once again the very great importance, from the point of view of coastal shipping, of the railway companies fixing their short haul and their dock charges so as to enable coastal shipping to serve more and more as feeders to the railways, if one may put it in that way. Competition must inevitably exist between them, but that competition should be on fair and economic lines, and I believe that this Clause will go a long way towards bringing that about. It must be remembered, after all, that the railway companies, vis-à-vis coastal shipping, have very great advantages. Ships are more or less self-contained economic units. They have to pay their way or else lay up, whereas the railway units, on the other hand, are immense, and so widespread are the activities of the railways that it is extremely difficult to say whether or not any rate is really an economic rate.
Secondly, the shipping companies' routes are limited and fixed by nature. They cannot be extended in the way that railway routes can he. The coastal shipping companies can only compete to a very small extent with the railways, and at the same time they are largely dependent on the railways for their short hauls. It is satisfactory to learn that the railway companies have regarded coastal shipping as complementary to themselves. That is, I think, the proper point of view in the national interest. Equally, it can fairly be stated, I think, on behalf of the coastal shipping industry, that they are ready and anxious to co-operate with the railways on fair terms and to cultivate cordial relations between these two industries, both of them of very great national importance. I do not want to take up the time of the House, but I was anxious to express the gratification of the coastal shipping industry that the Minister had, by putting down this Clause, not only endeavoured to meet the objections that were raised, but recognised the importance of coastal shipping in the national interest and striven to meet their legitimate point of view.

4.21 p.m.

Mr. SOMERVELL: I should like to make a few remarks on the position of this Clause in the statutory transport structure of this country as we have it at present. We know that it has a parent in Section 39 of the Railways Act, 1921. No application was in fact ever made under that Section, and if my hon. Friend the Member for the West Derby Division (Sir J. Sandeman Allen) is right, it was so framed that no application could be made; so here at any rate we are for the first time considering an effective Clause of this nature, and this is the first attempt in our legislation to protect a public carrier against the competition of a competitor. This is really a novel principle in our transport legislation. We all agree with the hon. Member for West Derby that coastwise shipping is of national interest, but it is equally true to say that the railways of this country, and indeed the proper development of the road transport of this country, are equally of national interest, and the object of our transport policy must be to develop the best and most efficient co-ordinated system.
I submit that it is an anomaly in our transport legislation that this Clause is not reciprocal. There are obvious reasons Why it cannot be, but it is surely undesirable, as part of a permanent policy, that one particular group of undertakings should be protected against what is called or may prove to be unfair competition against their competitors, whereas there is no reciprocal protection to the railway companies. I cannot help overhearing the hon. Member for the West Derby Division say that there is no unfair competition. That may be, but there has been successful competition so far as the carriage of coal to London is concerned, and there may well be in the future unfair competition, for the benevolent presence of the hon. Member may not always control the activities of those engaged in coastwise shipping, and we are here legislating for the future as well as for the present. I think the House should bear in mind, in passing this Bill, that at present we have got this non-reciprocal privilege conferred on those engaged in coastwise shipping.
The second point on which I should like to say a few words is in regard to what this Clause in fact protects the
coastwise shipping industry against. What is placing coastal carriers "at an undue or unfair disadvantage?" Did, for example, the taxi-cab, when it was invented, place the old horse-cab at an undue or unfair disadvantage? Is it intended by this Clause really to eliminate effective competition? If so, I think that clearer words might have been used. Is it merely intended to protect coastwise shipping against unfair competition: and, if so, are not the Tribunal left a little in the air as to what unfair competition is, or what principles they are to apply? It is perhaps worth noticing that representations can, at any rate in the first instance, be made on two alternative grounds, either that coastal carriers are placed at an undue or unfair disadvantage, or that the charges made by the railways are in fact inadequate, having regard to the cost of the service. There is no doubt a difficulty in saying when that is the case, but it is apparently contemplated that that may happen without there being any undue or unfair disadvantage on the coastal carrier. If we are going to control competition by means of an independent Tribunal and by applications of this kind, it is important that we should know what sort of competition it is that we desire to prevent taking place.
With regard to the Tribunal, one appreciates what the Minister said about the difficulty of getting a satisfactory tribunal to deal with this matter and the desirability of putting on it someone familiar with coastwise traffic. The words "representative of the interests of coastal carriers," I think, occur in the 1921 Act in setting out the names of the people who may go on what I call, loosely perhaps, the optional panels, but I think possibly in this case there is not the same gap as there is in the 1921 Act between a person going on a body as representative of an interest and a person going on to the Tribunal. We have, however, the Minister's assurance that it is intended, when he takes his seat on the Tribunal, that it should be in a judicial capacity, not as representative of the interests affected. In conclusion, it is with some diffidence that I venture these questionings with regard to a Clause in a Bill which all of us, or anyhow the vast majority of us who have taken any interest in the transport question, welcome whole-heartedly
as a real attempt, and a successful attempt, to deal with at any rate a number of the very difficult problems which have confronted the Minister in the arduous task which he has had before him.

4.30 p.m.

Sir ROBERT HORNE: The hon. and learned Member for Crewe (Mr. Somervell), who has just sat down, has made a very interesting contribution to this Debate, and he has raised certain points which require emphasising. I happen to be a railway director, as hon. Members may know, but I hope that when I come to speak in this House I perform my duty as a Member of Parliament, and that I do not forget what is owing to the House for the privileges which I enjoy by being a Member of the House. The advantage of being a railway director, as far as these Debates are concerned, is that there is a certain amount of information and experience available to one who is actively engaged in that office which it not available to other Members of the House, so that one can occasionally make a contribution which is useful in illuminating points which may not be entirely clear; just as the hon. Member for the West Derby Division (Sir J. Sandeman Allen), being interested in coastwise shipping, is able to indicate points that may not occur to many of those who are not as familiar with that form of transport as he is.
I think that it worth while to bring before the House what precisely is the character of the legislation which is sought to be enacted by this new Clause. I regard it as an experiment, and because it is an experiment, and although there are certain disadvantages connected with it, I do not propose to enter any opposition to its passage through the House. It is well, however, that hon. Members should realise what kind of experiment it is, and I enter the caveat from my own point of view here and now that what is done in this case should be regarded as an experiment and should not be counted as a precedent We shall have to be guided by experience in deciding whether it will be a useful provision and whether we shall either have to extend it or to withdraw it. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Crewe pointed out, it contains an
anomaly. It provides that coastwise shipping shall be entitled to appeal against rates which they regard as unduly undercutting their particular traffic, but there is no provision which will apply to coastwise shipping that they shall be held to any such duty in respect to other forms of transport.
So far as experience has gone, while it is true that some figures may be given to show that in particular instances railway rates were cut down in order to enable the railways to compete with some forms of coastwise shipping, we all know that coastwise shipping has been cutting rates in order to get traffic from the railways. Every railway company has had the experience of finding that its traffic has been seriously injured by rates at which coastwise shipping has been enabled to carry goods. In such circumstances as these, it is a distinct anomaly that the coastwise shipping should be left entirely free while being given the opportunity of complaining against a competitor. That is an anomaly which probably will not be allowed for many years to continue, and it may very well be—and I hope the hon. Member for the West Derby Division will take note of it—that in future the result of this legislation will be that coastwise shipping will he brought under some such provision in regard to their charges, and will be treated as having a duty to other forms of transport such as they seek to impose on the railways to-day.
There is a curious feature in this Bill. Hitherto, legislation has taken the line of putting restrictions upon railway companies as to rates, not with a view to keeping them from going down, but with a view to keeping them from going up. The protection which has hitherto been given has been afforded to the customers of the railways, but now for the first time the railway companies are not to be allowed to reduce rates if protests are made successfully by certain interested parties. That is something quite new in our legislation.

Mr. STANLEY: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will keep the whole question of undue preference in his mind.

Sir R. HORNE: I am keeping the whole doctrine of undue preference in my mind. It is the very foundation of what I am saying. So far as railway rates are concerned as between one trader and
another, the railways are not entitled to give one trader better terms than they give to another. That has never applied as between one form of transport and another in this country or in any other country that I know of. Here is a suggestion that rates are not allowed to be lowered if another form of transport can show that it is being damnified by the decrease that is being made. That is something, I suggest, which is rather startling. How has this particular consideration arisen? It has come about in this way. The Legislature has recognised the necessity for freeing the railways from certain restrictions, which today are very unbusinesslike and applied only to the days when the railways had a complete monopoly of the transport system of the country. Certain restrictions were put upon them with regard to the kind of arrangements they could make in charging rates to their customers. Now the fact is very well appreciated that, in order to enable the business of this country to be continued upon a businesslike footing, these restrictions should be taken off. It is in the presence of the railway's new freedom from these restrictions that the coastwise shipping industry comes forward and asks that it shall be protected against the possibility that the railways may use that freedom to put their rates down to a point at which coastwise shipping could not compete.
That, indeed, is the foundation of the whole of the legislation which it is now proposed to pass. I recognise that such circumstances might arise, although to me it is inconceivable that any one railway company or group of railway companies would set out deliberately to destroy coastwise shipping. As has been very well said to-day repeatedly, the great effort of recent times has been to make these forms of transport complementary to each other. That must be the ideal at which we should all aim, namely, that all forms of transport should not cut each others throats and render the position of one or the other more difficult, but that they should co-operate in order to bring about a system of transport which should be efficient for carrying on the business of the country. Accordingly, I cannot readily conceive of circumstances arising which are going to bring this Clause into operation. Perhaps it is meant to be kept in terrorem, and it is hoped that
some different ideas will emerge in the course of experience which will make it entirely unnecessary to keep it on the Statute Book. At any rate, it is an experiment, and the difficulties of the experiment are made clear by the phraseology which is used in seeking to protect the coastwise shipping people against the evils which they fear.
As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Crewe has pointed out, it is very difficult to construe what undue or unfair disadvantage to coastwise shipping is, or how, on any particular occasion, the Tribunal can come to the conclusion that it is an unfair disadvantage to coastwise shipping that rates should be reduced to a particular level unless it went to the length of strangling coastwise shipping. As I try to think of the circumstances in which unfair disadvantage may come to be construed, it seems to me not to differ very much from the succeeding alternative of charging rates which are below the cost of transport. Nobody would say that the railway companies were imposing an unfair disadvantage on coastwise shipping if their rates were such that they yielded them an adequate remuneration for the traffic. If you said otherwise, it would stop all progress and you might compel the railway companies to keep up their rates to a figure which would yield them too much remuneration in order to enable the coastwise shipping to live. Nobody would make that claim. If therefore you think what unfair disadvantage means, it results in something very like unduly reducing the rate below what I may call the cost of production in order to defeat their competitors.
There is another element which is very properly introduced into this new Clause. The tribunal is not to be allowed to come to a conclusion adverse to the rates unless something else is proved to the tribunal's satisfaction. What is that something else? It is that prejudice to the coastwise shipping is so great as really to be detrimental to the national interests. When we consider the kind of case in which the benefit to the public of having a reduced rate will be outweighed by a national interest great enough to preserve a higher rate for the sake of coastwise shipping, I come to the conclusion that the case presented by this new Clause is likely to be an imaginary one.
I do not think that we shall ever see the circumstances that will bring the Clause into active operation. For myself, I am not entering into any active opposition. I regard the proposed Clause as an experiment. I do not think it will ever be found to be operative, and from that point of view I am prepared, while not accepting the Clause as a precedent in any way, to see the experiment tried.

4.43 p.m.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) after putting forward the expert view of the railway aspect of this problem, told the House that he is prepared to see the experiment carried out, but that it will be ineffective. I agree with him. It certainly points to a paradise for the lawyers if it does nothing else, because it suggests two tests (a) and (b), neither of which I venture to suggest, are capable of decision at all. As regards (a), the question is whether the charge places coastal carriers in an undue or unfair disadvantage in competition. The tribunal will have to decide what is fair and what is unfair competition, and they are given no guidance whatever as to what degree of competition may be fair and proper under this Bill. There is no indication how one is to decide when competition ceases to be legitimate and becomes unfair.
As to the charges being inadequate having regard to the cost of affording the services in respect of which they are made or charged, it has been universally admitted that it is impossible to ascertain the cost of any service on the railway if you try to isolate it.
Time and again it has been admitted that it is impossible to isolate passenger traffic costs from goods traffic costs, owing to the vast complexity of the railway accountancy system. Here one is not even given the guidance of whether the inadequacy is to be established if overheads are included or by taking merely the out of-pocket costs. It has always been a contention of railway accountants and managers that it pays them to take traffic over and above a given minimum volume if that traffic merely pays them the out-of-pocket expenses and the slightest bit more, because it gives them some help towards their overheads. Is the Tribunal to try to arrive at a cost which includes
a fair proportion of the overheads, or at a cost which is merely the out-of-pocket costs to the railway company, that is, the extra coal, say, which is burned in hauling 10 more tons from Bristol to London; or is it to be the average cost of hauling goods of that class from Bristol to London? It is vital for the Tribunal to know which of those tests is to be applied if they are to be able to begin to apply any test at all.
Though I know the difficulties there are in drafting Clauses of this sort, I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it is hardly fair to leave things to the Tribunal in this perfectly vague and general way without any guidance whatsoever as to the criterion of competition which the House has in mind. First of all, what sort and what degree of competition is considered legitimate—is it a matter which depends merely upon price arid facilities and nothing more—and what factors are to be taken into account in ascertaining whether the charge is adequate or inadequate in view of the factors in the cost? Until those are determined I venture to suggest that this will be an entirely illusory Clause for protecting anyone. The railway companies will always be able to show that their costs, on some basis or another, match the charges, as they have always been able to do in the past, and they will equally be able to show that their competition is only the legitimate competition that one would expect between two competitive forms of transport.
The House is not deciding here whether it desires to take forms of transport as a basis of competition or whether it does not, although that is a fundamental and vital question. Does the House desire competition between road, rail, coastwise and other forms of transport to continue as in the past, or is this Measure designed to eliminate that type of competition to some, and if so to what, extent? I think anyone trying to administer this Clause is entitled to an answer to that question. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the railway companies would never drop their charges in competition with coastal snipping. I am sure he knows quite well that the manager of a railway company, if he sees a large block of traffic going from one point to another, will do anything to get it on to his line; and so will the coastwise shipping people. It is idle to suggest
that the railway companies have some particular benevolence as competitors with other forms of transport. We have here two very highly competitive forms of transport, and the House is going to try to protect one of them for the reason, I suppose, that it is the weaker of the two. Obviously, the railway companies have greater competitive strength than the coastwise shipping concerns; they are much larger, they have more capital behind them, and much greater facilities for canvassing and obtaining trade and granting flat rates over whole blocks of trade.
I suggest that this Clause is not going to be any solution of the competitive difficulties between coastwise and railway traffic. There is only one solution, and that is to bring all transport facilities under a single control of some sort or another. You cannot eliminate competition and at the same time preserve what you call fair competition. You have either got to get rid of your competition or, logically, allow it free play, so that the consumer may get what is called the benefit. I suggest that this is only one further step towards the end at which the hon. Gentleman will ultimately have to arrive, and that is the unification of transport under national control.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Interpretation, of Part II.)

In this Part of this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them,—
Agreed charge" has the meaning assigned to it by the first section of this Part of this Act;
Merchandise" has the same meaning as in the Railways Act, 1921;
Minister" means the Minister of Transport;
Railway" includes a light railway, not being a light railway which is laid wholly or mainly along a public carriage way and is used wholly or mainly for the carriage of passengers;
Railway company" includes any person or body of persons, whether incorporated or not, being the owner or owners or lessee or lessees of, or working, a railway;
Trader" means any person sending or receiving, or desiring to send or receive, merchandise by railway;
Tribunal" means the Railway Rates Tribunal;
Undue preference" has the same meaning as in the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888.—[Mr. Stanley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.51 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause is largely a matter of drafting. We decided to pick out the numerous definitions which are scattered about in the Clauses in Part II of the Bill and include them in one definition Clause. At the same time we have added a definition of a railway, to make it clear that this part of the Bill will apply to light railways but not to tramways.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of 20 and 21 Geo. V, c. 43, s. 19, as to hours for rest.)

The references to hours for rest contained in paragraph (iii) of Sub-section (1) of Section nineteen of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and in the proviso to the said paragraph shall be deemed to mean hours for rest away from the vehicle.—[Mr. T. Smith.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. TOM SMITH: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I hope we are going to be told that the Minister has done something to meet the hardships of the men engaged in driving road vehicles. In order to understand the purport of this new Clause the House must know first why Section 19 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, was passed. That Section was passed with a view to protecting the public against the risks which arise in cases where drivers of motor vehicles are suffering from excessive fatigue. Paragraph 3 of Sub-section (1) states that a driver must have at least 10 consecutive hours for rest in any period of 24 hours calculated from the commencement of any period of driving. When this matter was discussed in Committee we were told by the Minister that Mr. Herbert Morrison possibly resisted a similar Amendment in 1930 on the ground that it was entirely unnecessary. The difference is that Mr. Morrison was speaking at a time when he had had no experience of the working of his Measure. Now we have had roughly 2½ years' ex-
perience of the operation of that Section. Obviously when the House agreed to paragraph 3 of Sub-section (1) of Section 19 they intended that 10 consecutive hours of rest should be allowed to the driver, and in my opinion they certainly did not intend the driver to sleep on the vehicle. The Minister said he was prepared to do everything he could to see that Section 19 was carried out, but I may say to him and the House that it is being evaded and violated, and in many cases completely ignored, by employers who are not prepared to play the game.
I will give the House one or two concrete instances collected and supplied to me since the matter was discussed in Committee, in order to show what is taking place and with a view to persuading the Minister and the House to accept this new Clause. In some cases employers have made provision for the driver to take his 10 hours' rest on the lorry. I will quote one or two things said in police courts to show what the drivers themselves think about this Act. I have here a case in which the Kent Farmers' Transport Company was summoned under Section 19 of the Road Traffic Act. The driver gave evidence that he only went to bed on Saturday night. He said there was sleeping accommodation in the lorry, but he could not sleep owing to the jolting on the road. He further stated that the bed in the lorry was usually covered with goods. The employer, in evidence, said he never sent out a vehicle with less than two drivers if it was necessary to be away for more than 11 hours. He supplied sleeping space, mattress, rug and other clothing for the use of the drivers, and the lorry was fitted with a proper bunk with ventilators and a door at each end. I think that Parliament intended that the 10 hours' rest should be taken away from the lorry.

Mr. STANLEY: What was the result of the police court proceedings? Was not the employer convicted, showing that the Section as it stands is sufficient to cover such a case?

Mr. SMITH: If the Minister had waited I was going to say that a conviction was secured, but I am citing this case to show that employers are providing means of rest on the vehicle, which we think is wrong, and not the best means
of ensuring that the driver gets proper rest in order to carry out his duty. In another case Trent Oil Products were fined £20. The evidence showed that they had employed a driver for 43 consecutive hours. The driver, in evidence, stated that he fell asleep in the cabin of his lorry, but was moved on by the police. He again fell asleep and ran his lorry into the river. The driver was dismissed, but was told that this had nothing to do with the accident. I have another instance of what is taking place under Section 19. A man called Barringer drove down a 67-foot bank, was crushed against a tree and killed. He had been working for a certain firm for 54 out of 98 hours. His mate said that on the journey he had to keep correcting the steering because Barringer appeared to be dozing. The coroner severely criticised the long hours which the man had to work, and said they had a great deal to do with his death.
In another case a haulage contractor in Blackburn was summoned for allowing his driver to be on duty for 57½ hours with one break of 4½ hours and odd half-hours which he could snatch from time to time. The chief constable said such conditions were dangerous to people using the roads. A worn-out driver was liable to fall asleep over the wheel at any moment, with disastrous results.

Mr. STANLEY: What was the result of that case?

Mr. SMITH: I have not the result, but I think it will be found that the contractor was convicted. Another case concerns a haulage contractor of West Bridgford in connection with a five-ton lorry which was shown, in evidence, often to carry from six to eight tons. For the week mentioned in the evidence the driver had worked 118 hours. Incidentally he was paid 55s., including 10s. food allowance, for that 118 hours work, the pay working out at 4¾d. per hour. In another case fines amounting to £90 were imposed on Commercial Roadways for overworking a lorry driver, and it was shown that drivers had worked as long as 39 hours at a stretch. Counsel for the defence said the drivers slept in the cabin of the lorry for a couple of hours by the roadside. The magistrate said that cases of this kind were serious from the public point of view. One could imagine, said the magistrate, these drivers of big six-
wheeled lorries driving along the public roads stupified for want of sleep, and nothing could be too strong in condemning it.

Mr. STANLEY: Was there a conviction?

Mr. SMITH: Yes, I believe that there was a conviction in that case, but the mere fact of there being a conviction proves that justice was done. The Minister admitted upstairs that there were evasions of Section 19, and we want to help the Minister to see that the law is carried out in its entirety. From that point of view, we appear to be on common ground. The Clause of which I am moving the Second Reading aims at amending paragraph (iii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, by stating that the hours for rest—that is the 10 hours—shall be taken altogether away from the vehicle. The Minister will remember that he said upstairs that he had a great deal of sympathy with the intentions of this new Clause and that he agreed that our motives were of the highest, from the point of view of trying to get something like justice for the men who drove lorries. He went on to say that if this language were accepted it would mean that if a man slept on the vehicle it would be an offence, but if he left the vehicle and went into a field or on to the roadside it would not be an offence. One can agree straight away that that would be a possibility, but at the same time we have to make provision for motor vehicles in regard to the Road Traffic Act, and if we want to obtain for a driver the rest to which he is entitled, we must be sure that he can have that rest completely away from his work. That is the best, for the safety of the public, and for the assistance of the individual concerned.
In various Acts of Parliament, provision is made that men shall be away from their work for so many hours within the 24. I believe that in the Coal Mines Act it states clearly that a man cannot work more than a certain number of hours in 24. If any colliery company tried to make men sleep on the premises so that they would be ready for work next day, I am afraid that that colliery company would hear a good deal of it from the miners' organisation. Surely it is possible to make some provision in this Bill to ensure that proper rest can be obtained by men who have to deal
with these big lorries, and who usually travel very long distances. If it is the language of the Clause that is not acceptable, may I suggest to the Minister, seeing that he expressed almost his support of the intention of the Clause, that he might, either in this House or in another place, amend paragraph (iii) of Sub-section (1) of the Act of 1930, in order to avoid this growing practice of sleeping accommodation being provided on the vehicle.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I beg to second the Motion.
We have been supplied with ever so much information from those who are directly affected by this Clause. I know that there are other hon. Members in the House, not sitting on these benches, who are prepared to place before the House information to convince the Minister that he ought to accept the Clause. The Minister to-day is again being congratulated on all hands on the great amount of work that he is doing in connection with this Bill. He may take it from me that, so far as the drivers of vehicles are concerned, if he does not accept this new Clause, the Bill will not be worth a button, and might as well never have come before the House, because there will be nothing in it of benefit to the workers. This is the only little crumb, and we are trying to get it in.
All that this Bill has done up to now as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) well put it, is to try and avoid cut-throat competition between the various transport interests. The Minister has been told by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) from our Front Bench that the Government will not attempt to do away with competition. We want competition done away with. We said at the very beginning, when this Bill was introduced, that the only thing to be done was to nationalise the transport of this country, right from the ground to the air. All of it ought to be under the Government, because there is no other way out of this difficulty. The Minister will find, with this Bill, that he is treading a very thorny path, in trying to keep the balance between road, rail and shipping transport. Then he is going to be faced with the air. The only way that he can avoid trouble is by socialising the whole of transport.
We have come forward again to try to help to make the capitalist system a wee bit more tolerable than it is at present to the workers. That is why we have brought forward this new Clause. It was all very well for the Minister to rise, when my colleague was submitting case after case, and to say, "Were they not convicted?" Yes, they were convicted, and he sits down quite jubilant that he has scored a point, and as though the point that my colleague was making was of no account. There are innumerable cases which I hope that some hon. Members, who are more conversant with driving motor cars than we are, will put before the House. There are actual cases that never come before the courts. The conditions of the workers who are in control of large vehicles is an absolute scandal. If the Minister is the type of man that this House and the Committee upstairs give him credit for being, he will accept our new Clause. All that we are trying to do is to protect the worker, and to make the Bill more workable.
This Bill will put into the hands of authorities outstanding powers against men who do not conform to the law, and do not keep their vehicles up to the standard after they have been warned. If they do not carry out the instructions they will be liable to imprisonment. The reason given by the Minister to the Committee for conferring that strong power was the desire to get at those who are always against any advance being made. In the Committee, great power was represented by lawyers who were there to represent the interests of vehicle owners and omnibus owners, who did not want any concession to be given to the workers or any concession which would make it more difficult for them to make money out of road transport. That is their business. The Minister's business is to see that road transport is safe. The Minister laid it down that vehicles must be kept up to a certain standard, and that if they are not kept up to that standard the owner of the vehicle is to be liable to imprisonment. We put it to the Minister that if it is so imperative that vehicles should be up to a standard, it is even more necessary that the drivers of the vehicles should always be in a cool and calculating condition, not flurried and not excited or tired.
It is more essential to look after the men who are running the machine; the most important part of the machine is the man who is driving it. How can you expect a man who is tired because he lacks sleep to do his work? I know from experience, as a worker who has worked over-shifts night and day, that the most terrible thing, physically and mentally, is lack of sleep. How can our roads be safe when there is this possibility? After all the careful drafting of this Bill, after we have been hammering at it week after week upstairs and after all the ability that the Minister can bring forward, it should not allow the driver to be left to the tender mercies of the bad employer. We have against the bad employer to make laws that are so strict that he is not able to ride through them and send men on long journeys during which they will not get proper rest and not be able properly to carry out their function of driving a vehicle on the main highways.
I put this to the Minister: Think what it means. I know no more onerous job than to be the driver of a heavy lorry on our main highways to-day, travelling at 30, 40, or sometimes 50 miles an hour. If that man is not in perfect physical and mental condition, he is a menace to everybody on the road. Clauses have been embodied by the Minister in the Bill to make our great arterial roads safe, and it would be in keeping if the Minister were to accept this Clause of ours. We have to remember that men who are driving these vehicles have to do everything that is done by a whole organisation for the engine driver upon the railways. Think of the difference. The engine driver cannot drive his engine off the rails, because it runs on a fixed and permanent line. He has signals to guide him and everything to keep him correct. Nothing is likely to get in his way. On the other hand, the driver of a motor lorry on our great highways has 101 things to contend with. He has a most exciting and difficult job—one of the most difficult that I know of. Even in driving a motor car, anyone who has done it for 10 hours knows the terrible strain that it is, and the strain of driving a great big heavy vehicle for 10, 12, or 15 hours is very much greater. That is why we are so anxious that it should be laid down definitely in an Act of Parliament that
the driver shall have, out of the 24 hours, 10 clear hours away from the vehicle. Surely, in this enlightened age, enough has been said from these benches to convince the Minister that, if he wants to have any credit from this Bill as far as we on these benches are concerned, he must accept this Clause. As I have already said, these drivers who have been reading the Bill, and watching every action that we have taken, consider that, unless the Minister accepts this Clause, his Bill, as far as they are concerned, might just as well have never come before the British House of Commons.

5.17 p.m.

Sir FRANK SANDERSON: I rise because I feel that, if this Clause cannot be accepted by the Minister, he should give the House some assurance that measures will be taken to cover the point which it raises. When the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. T. Smith) referred to several cases, the Minister of Transport rose and asked whether there was no conviction, and, when the reply was given that conviction did in fact take place, that appeared to satisfy my hon. Friend. I would like, however, to give him a case within my own quite recent experience, and I assure him that it is not the first experience of this character that I have had. Only a few months ago, a large furniture van arrived at my house near Lewes, in Sussex, and I went out and spoke to the driver. It was 20 minutes past nine in the evening when he arrived. I was interested in the man, and, therefore, asked him where he had come from. He informed me that he had left Winchester at five o'clock in the morning, and had gone from Winchester to Oxford, where he collected furniture from several people, including my son, and had brought the furniture to Lewes, 50 miles south of London. I asked him how he proposed to spend the night, and he said, "I want to ask you if you will permit me to drive my lorry into your garage or yard, and to sleep on my furniture van until five o'clock in the morning, when I propose to leave here for Hastings." I said to him that he could put his van in the garage, and I would find him somewhere where be could sleep during the night, but he replied, "Thank you very much, but I cannot accept that, because I must not leave my valuable cargo; I must sleep on
that cargo." Therefore, all I could do was to give him some supper and permit him to sleep on the furniture van—a very large van—and he left my place at nine in the morning. In a case of that kind, the question of conviction does not arise. It was not the first occasion on which I had had vans coming to my place, and sometimes I learned that the drivers had been on the road for 18 hours on end. I really think that some protection should be given them. When these men are delivering loads of furniture and so on in the ordinary way in the country, there is no question of prosecution, because no one sees them, and they do not come within the purview of the police, so that they are able to carry on with their work the next morning. I suggest that some Clause of this kind should be inserted in the Bill.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: I have some knowledge in connection with the carrying of goods, having seen many deliveries go out of the city of Liverpool, and I think that this is a Clause which ought to be inserted in the Bill. It is a well-known fact that, in the case of many small firms in the City, young men are sent out with these cars on journeys lasting as long as 25 and 30 hours, and, consequently, they are not able to get proper rest. Certainly, there have been cases in the Liverpool Police Court in which convictions have been obtained against people who have employed men in this way, but conviction is not a sufficient safeguard, because there are hundreds of cases in which there is no conviction at all. The necessity of getting employment compels people—I notice that the Minister shakes his head; if he does not agree—

Mr. STANLEY: I was dissenting from the other point which the hon. Member made. He seems to be mixing up the enforcement of the existing law and the question of a provision in new legislation. He was complaining, not that the existing law was not sufficient, but that it could not be enforced.

Mr. LOGAN: My complaint is that there is no provision in the Bill which entitles the individual to a legitimate period of rest. A car may stand up at any moment for an hour, or two hours, or three hours, but my contention is that an opportunity should be given to the
driver to get suitable rest away from the car. I do not see any objection to his leaving the vehicle. It may be said that he has no opportunity of putting up anywhere, but, surely, England offers many opportunities for anyone who is driving to get off the car, put the car up, and resume his journey when he has been able to get proper rest. Unless the Bill includes a Clause of this description, it will be of very little value except to competitors of decent firms who Are willing to see that their men who are employed in a certain occupation get reasonable hours of rest. It will open up opportunities of competition on the roads to people who are not particularly concerned to carry on their business in a legitimate manner.
Unless such a Clause as this is inserted, it will not be possible to bring about proper regulation of the roads from the point of view of public safety. On the ground of public morality, if on no other ground, the Government who are anxious to bring in a Traffic Bill like this ought at least to see that the person who conveys the goods is not only responsible, but has legitimate hours of rest such as ought to be Allowed to any person having control of a vehicle on a public road. No vehicle should be allowed on a public road unless the driver has absolute control of it, and, in these days of traffic congestion, a driver who has not had proper rest, and is therefore not able fully to understand the difficulties of the road, should not be allowed to drive. If the Minister does not accept this Clause, it will be he himself who ought to be indicted, because, if a person who can avoid a certain difficulty will not take steps to rectify what can be rectified, it is he who is really responsible.

Mr. STANLEY: The hon. Member should say that to Mr. Morrison.

Mr. LOGAN: I am only concerned with the Bill which is now before the House; I am not concerned with Mr. Morrison. I am as anxious as the Minister is that this Bill should be a workable Bill, which will give satisfaction to al concerned and do the Minister credit. I do not want to pass bouquets to the Minister, but I recognise that he is intelligent, smart, and knows his business and I and my friends are only anxious to make the Bill more complete and successful. It will certainly redound to the
Minister's credit if he will bring in something which has a humane touch about it, and will give the opportunity to those who are in charge of vehicles to obtain that sleep which is so essential to the welfare of their business. I think the Minister will agree that, if he were asked by any firm to go on a journey of 20 or 30 hours without rest, he would think it was pretty tall, and I would only ask him to do to others as he would wish others to do to him. This Clause, if inserted in the Bill, would redound to the credit of a Minister who up to the present has really been a success on the Front Bench.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: I desire to urge upon the Minister the remarks of the Mover of the Amendment. Surely we have learned something since 1930. When this Clause was embodied in the Act of 1930, it was really experimental, but since then we have learned much. Not only is there greater road congestion, not only have there been great improvements in vehicles generally, but one knows that the roads in these days are carrying a substantial amount of traffic which formerly went on the railways. As one who travels about the roads fairly frequently in cars, I suggest to the Minister that there is no greater public danger in Britain to-day than the tired driver. The Minister can issue instructions telling you what you should do when turning to the left or turning to the right, as the case may be, and that you should be more sportsmanlike. All these forms of advice are given to us when we obtain our licence, but it avails us nothing if the human element in charge of the vehicle is not in a state of physical fitness. In these days when motor cars, in particular, have reached a stage when they can be said to be almost fool-proof, it is very easy for persons without any mechanical knowledge at all to drive them, but it is no use having technical improvements in the vehicle unless the individual at the steering wheel is in a state of mind to understand at all times the dangers confronting him and the regulations that he is expected to carry out.
I could cite within my own experience difficulties that I have been confronted with on the road. I know of persons who have driven from South Wales to Leeds and Sheffield and back in the
same day with a break of just an hour or so. I know of many cases where persons have been on the road with no rest for 30 or 34 hours. That is indictable, but it is practically impossible for these persons to be brought before a bench of magistrates unless someone driving a car intimates to a policeman that somewhere some vehicle got out of its line of traffic and did something to impede someone else and might be conceived to be a public danger. But, after all, there is not a policeman every few hundred yards along the road. It is becoming a common practice of motorists to report to policemen that they have observed something that may be described as a public danger. We desire to obviate that. This is a non-party issue. It is a matter of safety first. There is something far more important than instructions or advice to drivers when they obtain their licences. We believe the better way is for the driver to obtain rest. We could instance, in our mining experience, very many things that had to happen before men in engine houses at the collieries were ultimately removed by Statute from the premises for rest.
The transport industry is only in its infancy. It is growing and is likely to grow substantially within the next few years. Our roads have not been constructed to carry the heavy vehicular traffic that they have to do. Safety depends entirely upon the efficiency of the human element, and it is remarkable how efficient the human element is, but while vehicles are becoming fool-proof it is essential that the driver should have adequate rest if he is to be conscious that he is driving to the public safety. For these reasons, we urge upon the Minister to let the driver have some hours of rest away from the nerve-racking vehicle. Not more than 2 per cent. of the prosecutions that take place represent the number of breaches of Clause 19 of the 1930 Act. The hon. Gentleman should do all he can to see that these breaches do not take place, and the way to prevent them is to see that the driver obtains adequate rest away from the vehicle.

5.36 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): When this Clause was considered by the Committee,
there was a general feeling that it was a highly important and desirable thing, if possible, to reduce over-hours in driving. My hon. Friend was most sympathetic to the feelings which prompted the moving of the Clause and pointed out one thing only about it, that it would not carry out what was intended, and that the words "away from the vehicle" might be interpreted to mean in a field by the side of the road where the vehicle stood. It seems rather curious that hon. Members, in bringing forward the Clause again, should not have devised some words of their own to meet the purpose that they have in view. We are all anxious, and not least the Minister, that the provision of 10 consecutive hours of rest in any period of 24 hours, calculated from the commencement of any period of driving, that is required by Section 19 of the Road Traffic Act should be enforced. We feel—the cases that have been cited by hon. Members opposite seem to prove it—that the law as it stands is effective if only it can be enforced.

Mr. T. SMITH: May I point out the difference between us f At the moment it appears to be according to the law that a man gets 10 consecutive hours of rest on the vehicle. We are trying to make it illegal for the 10 hours rest to be taken on the vehicle.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: No doubt the hon. Member could cite some case such as he is alluding to. Will he do so I

Mr. SMITH: I am trying to point out the difference. You say that the law if carried out is adequate. That does not satisfy us. We are trying to make it illegal for the 10 consecutive hours rest to be taken on the vehicle.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I appreciate the point of hon. Members opposite, but I think the important point is the enforcement of the 10 hours rest, and that is adequate if you can get it enforced. It seems to me that employers will find it necessary so to arrange their work that they will be able to give their drivers proper rest in every 24 hours. We have every reason to believe that the provisions of this Bill will greatly facilitate the improvement of these conditions. When it is a condition of a licence that reasonable hours shall be maintained, and when a log book is kept which will record
the journeys, I think bad owners who overwork their people will be far less inclined to run the risk of being found out. They will know that they stand to lose their licence, and possibly that will be a more powerful influence upon them than a fine in a court of law. The case that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson) cited was clearly one of illegality and he, as a good citizen, would have been well advised to take it up and bring it to the notice of the authorities. It is the duty of every citizen to assist in the maintenance of the law, and I, for one, should feel that it was my duty, if a case of that kind came to my notice, to take it up. In the circumstances we do not feel that we can accept the Clause.

Mr. ATTLEE: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman say that, as the law now stands, it is illegal for these hours of rest to be taken on the vehicle?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Oh no, I do not say that for a moment, and I can imagine cases where it might be very difficult for a court to insist upon the hours of rest not being taken upon the vehicle, for instance, where a man was in charge of a very important load. The point is that there must be, according to the law, 10 complete hours of rest in the 24. The law as it stands is strong enough, and the new provision in the Bill will be a further inducement to employers to keep to the law. We do not think the Clause would carry out the purpose intended, and we are not prepared to accept it.

Sir F. SANDERSON: As I understand it, provided a man has 10 consecutive hours rest, even though he sleeps on his lorry, he is carrying out the law. Am I to take it that my hon. and gallant Friend is satisfied that, if 10 hours sleep is taken on the vehicle, that is all that is necessary?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I suggest that that is a case that should be tried in law. In the circumstances, I should not be prepared to give an opinion on the point of law.

Mr. T. SMITH: On a point of Order. Might we have the Solicitor-General here to deal with the point?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): That is not a point of Order.
Hon. Members can ask in Debate for the advice of a Law Officer, but the Chair has no power to require his attendance.

Mr. PARKINSON: In view of the fact that we have not a Law Officer present, would it be possible to move the Adjournment of the Debate?

5.44 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I can give the answer at once. It is a matter of fact in each case whether the condition as to rest is satisfied. Generally speaking, where a bunk and mattress are provided the courts would hold that that satisfies the condition. In the case that the hon. Member quoted, it is doubtful whether the courts would hold that that constituted rest.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: Would the hon. Member agree that it would be more desirable if the rest were taken in a house or in a bed away from the vehicle? Would not the proposed Clause assist in that objective?

Mr. STANLEY: Perhaps I did not make myself sufficiently clear. First of all, the trouble is in regard to the actual meaning of the Clause which has been moved. The effect of the Clause is merely that the rest must be taken away from the vehicle. It is clear that in certain circumstances it might put a man in a worse position.

Mr. BEVAN: Why?

Mr. STANLEY: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to proceed. It might put a man in a worse position if you forced him to take his rest away from the vehicle. If, for instance, he can satisfy the requirements of the law by sleeping out in a field, and yet if on a wet night he got inside his lorry to sleep he would be breaking the law, it would be manifestly absurd to put him in such a position. I agree with hon. Members opposite that one wants the 10 hours' rest spent as we understand that rest should be spent, but I would point out to them that that will not be assured in any way by the proposed new Clause, which in certain circumstances might produce a greater discomfort to the man. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about public safety?"] Public safety is not met by making a man sleep out in a field in the rain rather than allowing him to sleep
in a lorry under cover. The hon. Member does not quite appreciate the fact that a man is not breaking the law if he sleeps in a bed; he would break the law if he slept inside the lorry. That is the reason why it is impossible to accept the Clause. It does not carry out the intention of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The point is that no case has ever yet been brought to our attention where the kind of thing of which hon. Members opposite complain has happened without the law being broken as it stands at present. In fact, we do not believe that when you really come to enforce, as we hope to do under the provisions of the Act, the 10 hours' consecutive period of rest, the kind of thing which the hon. Members have in mind will ever occur.

Mr. LOGAN: I can state a case.

Mr. STANLEY: All those cases to which hon. Members have referred hitherto are cases where a man in the middle of, possibly, excessive and illegal hours, has stopped for a couple of hours or so, and gone to sleep beside the road. That is illegal as things stand to-day.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: Who is to ascertain the facts?

Mr. STANLEY: The hon. Member told me that he knew of a case where a man had driven 30 hours. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary when he said that he believed it to be the duty of every person, to whose notice a case of that kind was brought, to bring it forward. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) shakes his head. I cannot understand why hon. Members attach, as they rightly do, such importance to the enforcing of this law, and yet be prepared to stand aside and say that there is no reason to enforce it. I hear an hon. Member say that they are not all policemen. I should have thought that for the benefit of the workers whom they claim to represent if they can—[Interruption.]

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I really must ask hon. Members to observe the ordinary rules of Debate. The Minister is speaking and if he will not give way, hon. Members should not interrupt.

Mr. TINKER: I protest against the hon. Gentleman saying that we on this side are not prepared to do our duty.
[Laughter.] What is there to laugh at? The hon. Gentleman has accused all of us on these benches of not being prepared to do our duty in regard to the law. I want him to withdraw that statement as it is applied collectively. If some individual made the statement it should not be applied to all of us.

Mr. STANLEY: I am only too glad to have the assurance of the hon. Member. I confess I was rather horrified at the general laughter from the benches opposite. If they assure me that it is only one hon. Member, and a particular hon. Member, I at once realise that there is no imputation on the general body of hon. Members. To return to the point which we were discussing, I do not believe that hon. Members can find a case—and I ask the hon. Member who moved the Amendment in Committee to provide the information—where this kind of thing to which they and we object has happened without the existing law being broken. We believe that the main thing to do now is, not to amend the existing law, but to see that it is properly enforced. I think that I may claim that the speeches of hon. Members opposite upon this Clause, eloquent as they were, have been, in fact, a complete defence for the licensing provisions of this Bill. We believe that in making the observance of these hours a condition of the Bill, and that by making it possible, if the conditions are broken, not merely to fine a man £10 or £20, but to put him off the road altogether as not being fit to run vehicles upon it, will do far more to help the men whom my hon. Friends opposite want to help than any provision of this kind. I would again say that it is clear that the Clause which is now being moved will not have the effect which hon. Members seem to attribute to it, and may, in certain circumstances, act to the detriment and not to the advantage of drivers.

Mr. KIRKWOOD rose—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that he has already exhausted his right to speak. We are not in Committee.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I know. But—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the hon. Member wishes merely to ask the Minister a question, I will allow him to do so.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The Minister of Transport has not replied to the point which I made, that the drivers of these vehicles say that, unless this Clause be included, the Bill will be of no use to them. The hon. Gentleman has not replied to that statement.

Mr. STANLEY: The hon. Member has asked a question, and my answer is, that those who say that have read neither the Bill nor the Clause. If they have read the Clause they will realise that it does not help them, and if they have read the Bill they will realise that it does help them. Does it mean nothing to have fair wage conditions attached to "A" and "B" licences, and to have the existing provision as to hours properly enforced in the future?

5.53 p.m.

Mr. PARKINSON: I am sorry—and I speak for all my hon. and right hon. Friends—that the Minister has really evaded the question. Does he believe that it is illegal, or that it is looked upon as legal for a man to be compelled to sleep in his lorry? The basis of the proposed new Clause is that he should take his rest away from the lorry. A case has been mentioned of an employer who was fined £20. The evidence showed that the driver had been employed for 43 consecutive hours, and that he fell asleep in the cabin of the lorry and was moved on by the police. Does the Minister agree that, in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1930, a man should be compelled to sleep on the lorry after he has been driving for 10 consecutive hours? There are many kinds of employers, and various interpretations are placed upon the law. There have been flagrant abuses of the law, and action has not been taken. If there had been a suspension of licences, there would not have been so many of these infringements. Some employers have little or no regard for the law or the well-being of their employés.
My hon. Friend who moved the Clause stated several cases where there had been abuses of the law almost beyond human endurance. Is the Minister prepared to state whether or not the law as it stands covers the position as stated from these benches this afternoon, namely, that it is legal for a man to remain on the lorry, if he does not operate it for more than 10 hours, and to sleep there for the remaining 10 or 14 hours out of the 24?
We want to know if that is the legal position, and, if so, it ought to be made definitely and clearly known. Section 19 of the Act of 1930 has not been applied at all rigidly. I think that the Minister would agree that employers have taken great advantage of the slackness underlying that Section of the Act. This cannot be allowed to go on for all time. Therefore, we wish the terms of the Clause to be accepted. The Minister says that it will not make any difference at all. Then, what is the objection to its acceptance?

Mr. STANLEY: I did not say that it would hot make any difference, but that it would actually harm the driver.

Mr. PARKINSON: It cannot harm the driver from any point of view. Surely, the employers have the same opportunity of organising their industry as the railway people had. What would be said of the railway companies if they compelled their drivers arid firemen to sleep on the engine after they had completed the requisite number of hours of work? They have to make arrangements for their employés to take their rest at rest houses. Nothing is provided in regard to road traffic, and it appears that there is no intention of doing anything in that direction. Consequently we are very much alarmed. Lorry drivers are human beings, and they ought to be protected. I urge upon the Minister the necessity of doing more to prevent evasions of the law. Is he aware of the terms of engagement of many of these drivers? In some cases they are paid by shifts, in others by contract, and in others by the loaded mile journey, with nothing for the return empty journey. That is the kind of thing which is going on. These men are exploited, and cannot help themselves. If they report matters to the police, there is little hope of their being able to get work anywhere again.
Surely it is not beyond the powers of the transport organisations to make provision, as is done by the railway companies, for sleeping their drivers after they have spent the full period at work. We believe that the Clause would clear away all doubt in the minds of employers that their people must take their rest away from the vehicle and not under a hedge or a haystack or something of the kind. They must make proper pro-
vision for their accommodation after they have carried out their work oh the lorry. If the law at the moment covers the position, I should like to ask the Minister why he does not adopt something which would make it acceptable to all of us? We know, he knows, everybody in the House knows that there is flagrant disregard of the law every day and that the matter ought to be taken in hand not only by Members of this House but by everybody in the country. Why do people not report these things? Because it is going to harm someone. I do not play second fiddle to anyone in trying to see that the law is kept, and, although he apologised, I resent the statement that the Minister made. The law is there; it was put there for certain purposes, and it must be kept.
The Minister mentioned Mr. Morrison. Mr. Morrison was the Minister when the Act was passed. When the Act was passed it was an experiment, and it is not fair to blame Mr. Morrison for any faults that have transpired during the operation of the Act. Surely, Mr. Morrison ought to be given credit for having tried to do something. Now that we have found that the Act is not operating as efficiently as we anticipated we expect that the present Minister will take steps to put things right where they are found to be weak in the Act. There are many weak points in the Bill, and I do not see any reason why the Minister should not accept the hew Clause with a view to strengthening the Bill, not only in the interests of good employers but in the interests of the people who have to work for the employers. Those people are part of the industry, they form one section of the community and they have the same right of protection against the bad employers as any other person has a right to be protected against other persons who are breaking the law.
We are not blaming all the employers. We do not think that all employers would do the kind of thing of which we corn-plain, but we do know that these things are done and that some employers would perpetuate the system. Therefore, we ask the Minister to extend his consideration to this matter and to accept the Clause. If the section in the Act covers this point, it ought to be made definite and clear that a man shall take his rest completely away from the vehicle which he is working. To-day, heavy vehicles
are being manufactured and cubicles are being built upon them, so that the men may take their rest. Does the Minister consider it to be a natural form of rest where a man is compelled to sleep in a small cubicle, probably no bigger than his body, in order to take the rest which human nature demands when a man is tired after a hard day's labour?

6.4 p.m.

Sir BASIL PETO: It is very unfortunate that hon. Members opposite did not find some fresh words in putting down this Clause on the Report stage, because the Minister has made the same reply that he made in Committee that although it is undesirable that a driver should take his rest on his lorry or in his lorry, it would be still harder for him to be forced to take his rest under a hedge or in an adjoining field. That is a conclusive argument. But the Minister said something more in Committee than he has said to-day. He said that he had every sympathy with the purpose of the hon. Members who brought forward the Amendment, and to-day he says that he desires that the 10 hours rest should be real rest, under conditions under which real rest can be taken. That being the desire of the Minister, I think it is very regrettable, knowing the difficulties in which the Committee found itself, as the words of the new Clause are not satisfactory and do not carry out the intention of the movers of it, that he did not help the House by bringing forward words which would prevent what we all want to prevent, and that is, that the driver of a heavy lorry should practically never get away from his lorry.
We have all heard about the busman's holiday at the week-end. There is nothing in the law to-day that even imposes the condition that he shall get a week-end off. Take the huge, heavy vehicles which run, say, from London to Edinburgh and back, manned by two drivers. These vehicles can be continuously on the road and the two drivers have either to be driving the lorry or sleeping in the bunk on it. That is unsatisfactory. The Minister has not said that there is anything in the Bill to say that that will not be legal in future. What hon. Members wanted upstairs and what they want now is to make sure that the conditions of driving, which are much more onerous to-day on the road than on the rail, shall not be
inferior to those which the locomotive drivers have obtained for themselves in regard to hours of rest. I think the Bill definitely fails in that particular.
While I frankly admit that the Minister is right in his belief that putting in this condition as a condition of the licence will make an enormous difference to the enforcement of the law as it stands, he has not satisfied the House that the law will ensure what he says is necessary rest, that is, rest not rattling along the same road where you have been driving but something which hon. Members opposite have tried to define as rest "away from the vehicle." If those are not the right words, why should not the right words be put in the Bill? While I cannot vote for a Clause which we were told upstairs in Committee would not do what is required, I appeal to the Minister not to leave this blot in the Bill but to see that a Clause is inserted in another place—there is still time—which will do what he wants, what the whole House wants and what the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment made quite clear is their intention.

6.9 p.m.

Mr. A. BEVAN: The Minister has received, in the Press and elsewhere, many compliments for the way he has handled the Bill. On the whole, the Committee upstairs and the House have treated him with the greatest possible consideration, but after having listened to his speech this afternoon I cannot say that he has reciprocated. If I understood his speech correctly, the line he took was that the existing law made it necessary that the driver should have adequate rest and that the obligation is laid upon the court to determine what is adequate rest. He said that if the new Clause was accepted the driver might sleep away from the vehicle on the side of the road. That would be a violation of the existing law. He said that if the driver slept under a hedge under the existing law the courts might hold that not to be reasonable rest and not an adequate place of rest. If the law holds that view, then the new Clause does not weaken the position. The Clause leaves the law untouched. Therefore, when the Minister tells the House that if the Clause were carried the driver would sleep under the hedge, I reply that the Clause does not give the driver the right to sleep under the hedge and
it does not take away from him the legal protection which he now possesses.
The new Clause although it may be bad from the Minister's point of view, does not weaken the existing law, it leaves it untouched, and if it is illegal for a driver to sleep under a hedge now it would still be illegal for him to do that if we carry the Clause. Therefore, when the Minister says that we do not protect the driver from being compelled to sleep away from the vehicle a few yards, we suggest that the existing law does that. How can the Minister or the Attorney-General say that we do not protect the driver from that position? If we cannot protect him, how does the existing law protect him? How does the existing law protect a driver from having to sleep under a hedge? Because the courts would hold that sleeping under a. hedge is not a desirable way of getting rest. The Clause does not say that sleeping under a hedge is a desirable way of getting rest.
We are dealing with a very important industry, which is just being organised, and we do not want to sec it grow up like the canal boat industry. We do not want to see families growing up on lorries on the road. Hon. Members extol the virtues of British family life and domesticity and now they are allowing a law to be carried which destroys the family life of the driver of a lorry. We do not want drivers to develop into the sort of peripatetic workers who never stay in one place, who have little or no protection and whose mode of life is a violation of all those domestic ties which every man has a right to develop. The Minister would meet the wishes of the House if he said: "The words of the Clause are not the words that I would like to put in the Bill, but the point is one that ought to be met and I will do my best to put in suitable words in another place." Everyone would agree with him in that, because it would protect the men against the present situation.
A point has been made that the reason why strong exception is taken to this proposal is because it is difficult for the drivers to compel the employers to give them reasonable allowances for lodgings. It is so much cheaper to put bunks in the lorries. The Minister admits that the law is bad when he says that if the courts are informed that a bunk has been
fixed in a lorry and that 10 hours' rest is obtained in that bunk, that that would meet the requirements of the position. Does he say himself that that would meet the requirements? No. He says that is unreasonable. Will he therefore give the men reasonable protection? That is all we ask. He would add to the laurels he has already won if he would give us that assurance at this stage.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I say quite frankly that the Clause, as drafted, is impossible, and I say equally frankly that I think the lines of a Clause of this nature, which tells the man where he may not take his rest, would be fruitless, but there are possibilities along another line of making the rest period to be a rest period during which time the driver must be beyond the control of his employer. Some words on those lines—I am not making any promise—would be the best way of meeting the point. I am not much impressed by the remarks of hon. Members opposite, because their point is entirely covered by the existing law, but I am alarmed at a possible expansion of the double-bunk system, and I will certainly consider whether an Amendment can be inserted in another place on the lines suggested to meet the point.

Mr. GEORGE HALL: In view of what the Minister of Transport has said, we are quite prepared to withdraw the new Clause on that understanding.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Drivers licences.)

(1) A person shall not drive a goods vehicle on a road unless he is licensed for the purpose under this Part of this Act, and a person shall not employ any person who is not so licensed to drive a goods vehicle on a road.

(2) A person shall be disqualified for obtaining a licence to drive a goods vehicle unless he is over the age of twenty-one awl fulfils such other conditions as may be prescribed:

Provided that the above-mentioned limit of age shall be dispensed with if the applicant shows to the satisfaction of the licensing authority that he was during the six months immediately preceding the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, regularly employed as a driver of a goods vehicle.

(3) A licence to drive a goods vehicle may be limited to such type or types of vehicles is may be specified in the licence.

(4) An application for a licence to act as a driver of a goods vehicle shall be made to the licensing authority for the area in which the applicant resides.

(5) The provisions of Sections seventy-nine, eighty and eighty-two of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, shall apply to any licence granted under this Section as though it were a licence granted under the provisions of Part IV of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, with the substitution of the licensing authority for the traffic commissioners referred to in the aforesaid Act.—[Mr. G. Hall.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. G. HALL: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The object of the Bill is to license all vehicles, to secure a proper regulation of the industry and to safeguard the interests of the public. We think that these purposes cannot be fulfilled unless the drivers of vehicles are also specially licensed, as is the case of drivers of public service vehicles under the Act of 1930. The new Clause embodies in this Bill the Section of the Act of 1930. The institution of a second licence for drivers of goods vehicles is, in our opinion, sound and reasonable. The same principle has been in operation for some time in the case of road passenger workers. There a, man has a driving licence issued in the ordinary way, but he also has a public service driving licence issued by the Traffic Commissioners. At the inception of the Road Traffic Act, those men who were driving public service vehicles before a certain date were automatically granted a public service driving licence under that Act. New applicants had to pass certain tests. We suggest in this Clause that a similar procedure should be adopted for the drivers of goods vehicles, that those who are already driving should be granted a licence and that new applicants should be subjected to a test, as they are in the case of driving passenger vehicles. In this way we suggest that the driving standard would tend to improve, a, good type of man would be attracted to the trade and public safety ensured.
If a second licence were adopted, it would mean that a man would have the same care and regard as the driver of a public service vehicle his, livelihood would in a large measure depend upon his keeping his licence clear. The machinery need not be cumbersome or costly. Such cost as may be incurred can be covered by a small amount, and any
disadvantage which might arise would be far outweighed by the advantages which would accrue to the public and to the industry. No one is asking that the rigid tests which are applied to drivers of motor vehicles on the Continent shall apply in this country. We are not asking that under this new Clause. In almost every European country, in America, and in the British Dominions, very rigid tests are applied before a licence is granted, and in Germany, before a driving licence is granted, the applicant must, produce a certificate of competence signed by the head of a driving-school, and then undergo a final test to confirm the verdict of the school and pass the examination of the official doctor to certify that he suffers from no disability which may prove a drawback to his driving efficiency. In France some 38 per cent. of the candidates who applied for driving licences in 1932 were rejected as unsuitable.
I do not know whether it is the result of our system of licensing, but it is true that no country has such a high percentage of accidents as we have. One has only to refer to the evidence given before the Royal Commission of 1929 to find that the concensus of opinion of representatives of the public was that rigid tests should be applied to motor vehicle drivers. We are not asking for a rigid test, we are not asking the Minister of Transport to do any more than is done under the 1930 Act; and if he will make the same provisions in this Bill it will suffice. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) has referred to the difference between road and rail and to the long apprenticeship which a driver of an engine on the railway has to undergo before he becomes the driver of a locomotive. It makes no difference whether he becomes the driver of a passenger train or a goods train. There is no danger of persons trespassing on the railways, it is a fenced track, and the chief thing for which a driver has to look is the signal. Still a rigid test is applied before a man can become the driver of a railway train. The Minister of Transport, in Committee, suggested that there was no analogy between a large motor goods vehicle on the road and a passenger vehicle. He maintained
that the analogy was between a motor car and a light goods vehicle, and that nothing could be done with a view of applying tests for certificates of competency or licences unless it was done under the general licensing law. He went on to say:
I have been asked questions in the House, several times, with regard to this matter, and I have always given the answer: Let me know the facts first; let me see from the facts whether this danger from the unlicensed driver is really as great as it is represented and as it possibly may be, and then we shall be in a position to decide whether this is a good thing to do or not. I could not anticipate the results of that investigation and accept this system, which would have to be extended to the whole of motor driving."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee A), 5th July, 1933, col. 643.]
We are not suggesting here that the whole question of the tests for drivers of motor vehicles should be overhauled. We are dealing here with a particular type of vehicle, and all we ask is that the Government should apply the same tests, as far as goods vehicles are concerned, as are applied to passenger vehicles. The late Lord Brentford, when he was Home Secretary, said that every possible device had been tried to secure a reduction in the accident rate on the roads. He was President of the Safety First Association, which had issued leaflets by the million, and done everything possible by voluntary effort. It failed; and the late Lord Brentford suggested that if the State had any regard for the public, it should take some drastic action regarding the question of licensing. We are not asking for a complete over haul of driving tests for the issuing of licences. All we are asking in this Amendment is that the Bill shall contain a provision similar to that which is now in the Act of 1930.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: I desire to support the proposed new Clause as a step in the direction of greater strictness in the issuing of licences. It may be that hon. Members opposite do not desire to introduce into this country the severe conditions which are imposed on the Continent, but, at all events, I regard this Clause as being useful in helping towards obtaining better conditions on the roads, and a better class of driver. The dangers on our roads are enormous. Seventeen
persons on an average per day are either hurled into eternity at once or so injured that they die, and 200,000 people a year are injured by accidents. Anyone moving about the City of London to-day carries his life in his hands. A state of affairs which produces such a rate of mortality and so many accidents is one which we should bring to an end. This Clause will help in that direction. There are, I know, on the roads many competent, skilful and conscientious drivers, but there are also 'a large number who are neither conscientious nor skilful. Let me quote from a speech which was made by the late Minister of Transport in July of last year at a luncheon at Clacton-on-Sea, given to Sir Alan Cobham. The late Minister of Transport said:
He had spent a good deal of time during the last few days travelling about the constituency visiting some of his own friends there, through the somewhat winding local roads. At holiday times he had noticed driving signals so badly made that it was impossible to understand them, and it became a great relief to arrive safely home.
He went on to suggest remedies. He referred to the fact that on the railways strict tests are applied to all drivers. Then he continued:
What I suggest is that you yourselves"—
he was addressing an audience of motorists—
should undergo a viva, voce examination on road signals. Take out your Highway Code to-night and ask your wife or your friend to examine you as to your knowledge of the proper signals in certain circumstances. If you cannot pass this examination in the calm of your own home, you have no right to be on the highway.
That was a statement by the ex-Minister of Transport. His remedy is that on Sunday afternoons, after that substantial meal that is so dear to the bourgeoisie, your wife is to put you through a cross-examination as to your knowledge of road signals. We want something better than that. We want to aim at securing on the road drivers who will be competent and safe and will not make the Minister of Transport thankful to get home after driving about the country. I received from a friend the other day a cutting from a newspaper which described an incident in Manchester. I ask why this state of things should be allowed. At Manchester recently a man was sentenced to six months imprisonment for manslaughter.
That man had 30 previous convictions for motoring offences, and his licence was not taken away. Whether that was because the judge thought that he had not the power to do so, I do not know, but that man, as far as my knowledge goes, when his term of imprisonment is at an end, can come out and resume his career of destruction on the roads. There are to-day driving on the roads men whose physical condition makes them incompetent. Let me refer to the case of a surveyor—I shall not mention his name—at Horncastle in Lincolnshire, who was charged with manslaughter and with driving a motor car to the public danger. He appeared in court wearing an ear instrument, and it was stated that he was stone deaf, whereupon a magistrate remarked, "Stone deaf and allowed to drive a motor car!" I have here also an extract from a letter to the "Times" written by Mr. Warner. In the course of that letter he says:
I recently met during the course of my duties a 17 years old certified mental deficient who had already held three posts as driver of a commercial lorry.
Then there are the cases of the colour-blind. In a recent question I called the attention of the Minister of Transport to the fact that a very large number of people are colour-blind and are unable to distinguish between the red and green traffic lights. I am not going to continue treating the House to a series of horrible examples, but I say that all this suggests that there is a very urgent need for stricter tests to be applied to people who use the roads; and it is because I think the new Clause will be a step in the direction of greater safety on the roads that I have much pleasure in supporting it.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I would rather condole with my hon. Friend who moved the Second Reading of this Clause on the enthusiasm of the hon. Gentleman who has supported him, because if anyone could have made entirely the case that I made for the resistance of the new Clause, it was my hon. Friend who supported it. He showed at once and throughout his speech that it was impossible to draw a distinction between the licence system for the goods vehicle and the licence system for motor drivers as a whole, and that was the exact point that I made when the Bill was in Com-
mittee. I want to make it plain to the House that in asking them to reject this new Clause, which is confined to one particular section of motor transport and seems to do great injustice in raising the age limit for the driving of a light van to 21 years, I am not by any means shutting out the possibility in the near future of legislation which would go beyond this proposal in dealing with the whole problem.
As hon. Members are aware, we are to-day for the first time carrying out a careful analysis of the causes of fatal accidents. The interim period of six months was completed at the end of June, and I hope before long to publish some results of that period. I felt that no really valuable results could be obtained in a less period than a year. When that period is ended, at the end of this year, I shall examine the classification of these accidents, and I shall then for the first time be able to find out if any substantial proportion of the accident arises from the sort of mistakes on the part of drivers which can be corrected by making them pass a test before they are given a licence. The very worst example is the case quoted by the hon. Member a minute or two ago, of

a man who had 30 convictions against him. Obviously that man had been motoring for a long time and knew all that there was to be known about motoring, and he would have obtained a licence without any difficulty at all. The trouble with him was, not that he did not know what to do, but that he was constitutionally unable to do it.

Before we take a step which does mean a very considerable interference not only with the convenience, but with the livelihood of a certain number of people, it is worth while spending four or five months in seeing whether the facts justify what we do. I am sure the House would feel that if I were to accept this new Clause I would put them in a foolish position if, after I had done that, the result of the analysis was to show that in fact the accidents which arise from causes that could be prevented by a Clause of this kind, did not exist. I assure the House that I realise the possibility of something like this proposal, but on a wider scale, having to be done, but only after we have ascertained the facts and the necessity for doing it.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 38; Noes, 268.

Division No. 273.]
AYES.
[6.40 p.m.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Allen


Banfield, John William
Hirst, George Henry
Rathbone, Eleanor


Batey, Joseph
John, William
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Buchanan, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cape, Thomas
Kirkwood, David
Thorne, William James


Cove, William G.
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Leonard, William
Wedgwood Rt. Hon. Josiah


Dagger, George
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Dobble, William
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Edwards, Charles
McEntee, Valentine L.



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McGovern, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. D. Graham and Mr. Groves.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Mainwaring, William Henry



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Broadbent, Colonel John


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)


Albery, Irving James
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Browne, Captain A. C.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Bernays, Robert
Buchan, John


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Burnett, John George


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Blindell, James
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Boulton, W. W.
Carver, Major William H.


Atholl, Duchess of
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tattoo
Castlereagh, Viscount


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (P'rtsm'th, S.)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Boyce, H. Leslie
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Brass, Captain Sir William
Christie, James Archibald


Balniel, Lord
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Clarke, Frank


Clarry, Reginald George
Horobin, Ian M.
Pike, Cecil F.


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Horsbrugh, Florence
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Pybus, Percy John


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Cook, Thomas A.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Copeland, Ida
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Rankin, Robert


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Rea, Walter Russell


Cowan, D. M.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Cranborne, Viscount
Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)
Reid, William Allan (Oerby)


Craven-Ellis, William
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Croft. Brigadier-General Sir H.
Jamieson, Douglas
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Janner, Barnett
Roberts, Aied (Wrexham)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Cross, R. H.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Crossley, A. C.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Runge, Norah Cecil


Dawson, Sir Philip
Law, Sir Alfred
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Dickle, John P.
Lees-Jones, John
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Doran, Edward
Levy, Thomas
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Drewe, Cedric
Lewis, Oswald
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Duckworth, George A. V.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Duggan, Hubert John
Llewellin, Major John J.
Scone, Lord


Eady, George H.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Selley, Harry R.


Eden, Robert Anthony
Mebane, William
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Edge, Sir William
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
McKeag, William
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Waiter D.


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
McKie, John Hamilton
Smith, Sir J. Walker. (Barrow-In-F.)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Macguisten, Frederick Alexander
Smithers, Waldron


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Maitland, Adam
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Flelden, Edward Brocklehurst
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Soper, Richard


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Ganzonl, Sir John
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Gibson, Charles Granville
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Stevenson, James


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Storey, Samuel


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Strauss, Edward A.


Gledhill, Gilbert
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Gower, Sir Robert
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton


Graves, Marjorie
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro, W.)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Grimston, R. V.
Morrison, William Shepherd
Summersby, Charles H.


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Moss, Captain H. J.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Munro, Patrick
Thompson, Luke


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nall, Sir Joseph
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hales, Harold K.
Nunn, William
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
O'Connor, Terence James
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ormiston, Thomas
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Harbord, Arthur
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Harris, Sir Percy
Palmer, Francis Noel
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Hartland, George A.
Patrick, Colin M.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Pearson, William G.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Penny, Sir George
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Withers, Sir John James


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Petherick, M.



Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Captain Austin Hudson and Mr. Womersley.


Holdsworth, Herbert
Pickering, Ernest H.



Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada



Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 1.—(Licensing of goods vehicles.)

6.47 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I beg to move, in page 2, line 19, after the word "process," to insert the words "or treatment."
This is largely a drafting Amendment. The word "process" was criticised in Committee upstairs as being too limited. We, therefore, propose to insert the words "or treatment," thus following the wording of the Merchandise Marks Act.

Amendment agreed to.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, in page 2, line 28, at the end, to insert the words:
(d) the carriage of goods in a vehicle in respect of which a licence has been taken out by a manufacturer or dealer under Section nine of the Roads Act, 1920, or by a repairer under Section fifteen of the Finance Act, 1922, in accordance with the regulations applicable to that licence;
(e) the carriage of goods in a vehicle by a manufacturer, agent, or dealer, whilst the vehicle is being used by him for demonstration purposes.
This Amendment has been put down in order to meet a point which was raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland) during the Committee stage. The first paragraph is intended to meet the case of the tradesman who in the exercise of his profession and carrying what is known as a trade plate, does something which is, technically, carriage of goods for hire or reward, but in fact, may only be the conveyance of some essential for his own business. The first paragraph provides that where a vehicle is used under a trade licence the conditions prescribed elsewhere in the Bill shall not apply. The second paragraph deals with a different point. This relates to the practice of manufacturers sending out lorries for demonstration purposes, often for considerable periods. Under this practice a lorry may go to a man, to whom it is intended subsequently to sell it, for an extended trial and it seems hard on the manufacturer that he should have to obtain a licence to cover that vehicle as though it were in his own use. The second paragraph which we propose to insert here will make it plain that if a vehicle is sent out for that purpose that shall not be deemed to constitute a carrying of goods for hire or reward and will not therefore necessitate the obtaining of a licence by the owner.

6.51 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: With regard to the second part of this Amendment, do I understand that it is intended to cover the carriage of goods by a person to whom a vehicle has been sent for demonstration purposes? I think the Minister may find that the words which he proposes to put in here do not carry out his intention. What he proposes is to limit this to the carriage of goods "by a manufacturer, agent or dealer." There is also the question
of carriage by the person to whom the vehicle is lent.

Mr. STANLEY: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for raising that point. It is a legal point as to whether there is still use by the manufacturer when the lorry is sent to the prospective customer for demonstration purposes, possibly with his own driver. In certain circumstances it might be argued that that was still use by the manufacturer. I shall certainly look into it.

Amendment agreed to.

6.53 p.m.

Sir G. RENTOUL: I beg to move, in page 2, line 32, after the word "Act," to insert the words "the carriage of goods by the Crown and"
As the Bill stands, vehicles in the service of the Crown are exempted from its provisions and regulations. The object of the Amendment is to bring goods vehicles used by Government Departments under the licensing provisions of Part I by which they would require to have "C" licences. This point was raised in Committee and the Minister then suggested that in regard to vehicles of this class there was a remedy open which was, in itself, a sufficient safeguard, in that it is possible to attack the Minister in charge of a Department, on the Floor of the House of Commons. He argued that that fact put Government Departments in a different position from public and local authorities. If the security provisions in Clause 8 to which the Minister rightly attaches so much importance are to be generally applicable, there seems to be no justification for not applying them to vehicles in the service of the Crown, especially as the Minister now proposes, by an Amendment which stands later on the Paper, to extend this exemption to vehicles used by persons acting in pursuance of contracts for the Crown for the carriage of goods for public purposes. Thus not only goods vehicles directly under Government Departments but the vehicles of Government contractors are to be exempted from the provisions of the Bill and the safety regulations.
Surely it is important, that regulations as to overloading, hours of labour and so forth should apply to vehicles in the Government service as well as to other
vehicles whether privately-owned of owned by local authorities. It is to be remembered that a large number of vehicles are used by the Post Office in the conveyance of mails and stores, by the Office of Works in the conveyance of building materials, and the transport of furniture, by the Stationery Office and by other Government Departments. Parts I and III of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, were expressly made to apply to vehicles in the service of the Crown in spite of considerable opposition and objection, and the purpose of this Amendment is simply that vehicles in the service of the Crown shall be placed on the same footing as other vehicles in relation to the valuable security conditions in this Bill.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. GUY: I beg to second the Amendment.
It may be said by the Minister that Government vehicles should not be made subject to licensing and to the security conditions laid down in the Bill, but I would point out to him that under Clause 15 and 16 examiners of goods vehicles will be entitled to examine Government vehicles, and if a Government vehicle were found to be defective, the examiner would be entitled to prohibit its use on the road. If an examiner is entitled to prohibit the use of a Government vehicle, is there any reason why the security conditions should not apply to Government vehicles as well as to the other vehicles covered by the Bill?

6.58 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEAD LAM: This subject was discussed in Committee ustairs. I may say at the outset that we do not see our way to put this obligation upon the Crown. Indeed, as the hon. and learned Member for Lowestoft (Sir G. Rentoul has pointed out, we are going further, because we have put down an Amendment providing that vehicles used by persons acting in pursuance of contracts with the Crown should also be outside the licensing provisions of the Bill. Serious difficulties would arise in the public service if this licensing obligation were forced upon the Crown. For instance, the War Office in the case of Army manoeuvres employ hired vehicles and it would be very awkward if they had to be responsible for the licensing of those vehicles. The proper course
seems to be to exempt from the licensing provision all vehicles used in the public service. The use of such vehicles, I would point out, is of necessity subject to the fair wages condition which is I think the principal matter of concern in this connection and other means can be found of securing the observance in their use of the safety conditions under the Bill, outside the licensing system. In the circumstances, we do not feel that the Amendment is desirable, and we hope that the hon. and learned Member will withdraw it.

Captain STRICKLAND: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman state what other means may be employed to enforce these conditions on Crown vehicles?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: There may be the loss of the contract if the contractor engaged by the Crown does not comply with the obligations of the law.

7 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The reason given for refusing this Amendment seems an extremely poor one. There does not seem to be any argument why the Crown should not be subjected to the same conditions with regard to safety, and so on, as other people. The case of the War Office has been mentioned, but, if it is necessary for the War Office to be exempt, then words can be devised to exempt the War Office. If you take the vast majority of the services of the Crown—the Post Office, the Stationery Office, and the rest—there is no reason why they should not be subjected to the same conditions as everybody else with regard to these regulations. This is the sort and type of bureaucracy which is so very undesirable—that Crown vehicles should be dealt with differently from others with regard to safety, merely because the Crown says that there are other means whereby we can enforce regulations if there is any trouble. This Amendment should be considered in its present form, or some form which will leave out, if necessary, the War Office vehicles. These, conceivably, might give rise to some difficulty.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman has quite appreciated the argument for the omission of Crown vehicles. We are not, in this Bill, altering the position to any
great extent, except with regard to fair wages which are already covered. The law which is imposed upon vehicles by the Act of 1931 is imposed upon Crown vehicles; the only difference is the part relating to safety and its enforcement by means of the withdrawal of licences. It would be rather absurd to put in the Crown, and make it possible for the licensing authorities to withdraw licences from the Secretary of State for War, thus preventing the Army having any mechanical transport at all. The hon. and learned Gentleman will see that the enforcement of these conditions by the withdrawl of licences is quite impossible in the case of the Crown, and there is no object in putting it in. The Minister in charge is here to be attacked in the House, and the fair wages conditions are always complied with. In so far as the position is extended by the Amendment to be moved later, there will be power to withdraw the contract, if these conditions are not complied with, and so keep the contractor within the bounds of the Act.

7.4 p.m.

Captain STRICKLAND: I hope there will be support for this Amendment. The answer which has been given by the Minister in charge of the Bill, and his hon. and gallant Friend, is not of a very convincing or satisfactory character. The Minister has quoted a ease as to the absurdity of taking away licences from Crown vehicles. I want an assurance as to how far this is bound up with his own Amendment later, which incorporates any vehicles on contract to the Crown. If you have Brown, Smith, or Robinson, a haulage contractor, conveying a load of bricks from Watford to somewhere else, is he to be exempt from losing his licence because he is a contractor to the Crown? If he exceeds the speed limit for some private firm, he is to be proceeded against. It is a poor consolation to a man crippled or injured by a Crown vehicle to know that the Crown contractor is going to lose his contract, whereas, if it had been an ordinary haulage contractor, he would have been amenable to the processes of the law. The Crown should be included so far as contract work is concerned, as distinct from vehicles owned by the Crown.

7.6 p.m.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: I apologise to the Minister for not being
here a few minutes earlier. I was detained by urgent business in another part of the House. I wish to support this Amendment for a reason which I do not think has been given already, and which I wish to put before the Minister. It is not only a question of the safety provisions themselves; it is also a question of the records. In reading the proceedings in the Committee stage of the Bill, I notice that, in connection with another section the Minister himself made the point that the effect of certain persons having to take out a "C" licence was that they were liable to keep records. It was the keeping of records, in the Minister's own opinion, that made it possible for inspectors to ascertain whether or not the licence holders had observed the conditions laid down in Clause 8. I am sure that the Minister himself would wish that all those driving vehicles in the Government service should keep these conditions which are necessary with regard to public safety, at least as carefully as drivers of any other lorries.
Drivers of Government vehicles are human beings. I know of one case where it is the Post Office van that has the reputation of driving fastest over a certain stretch of road. I am not wishing to make any complaint in that particular case. It is obvious that Government drivers are human beings like other people. If they have "C" licences they have to keep records, and if they keep records then, in the Minister's own opinion, there is even a better check that they observe the other conditions. I give that brief reason in reinforcement of what has been brought forward by the supporters of the Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House proceeded to a Division.

There being no Member willing to act as Teller for the Ayes, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Noes had it.

7.13 p.m.

Sir G. RENTOUL: I beg to move, in page 2, line 34, at the end, to insert the words:
(b) a trade or business carried on by a holding company or any subsidiary company of that holding company within the meaning of section one hundred and twenty-seven of the Companies Act, 1929, shall be deemed to be carried on by the other of them and by any other subsidiary company of that holding company.
The purpose of this Amendment is, of course, to permit a company which is carrying goods for itself, or for any subsidiary or associated company, to avail itself of the "C" licence without having to go to the trouble, and difficulty, of obtaining an "A" or a "B" licence. Such a company is in the position of a single firm or company. It is carrying goods for itself and others associated in the same business. During the Committee stage the Minister found himself unable to accept certain words. As he pointed out—and I agree with him—they went rather too far, and rather beyond the intention my hon. Friends and I had in mind. We have endeavoured to achieve our real purpose by putting down this Amendment in the form in which it now appears on the Paper. It will be noticed that the Amendment refers to Section 127 of the Companies Act, 1929. I always have the strongest objection to legislation by reference where it can be avoided, but it is really very difficult to find a form of words which carries out the intention one has in mind, and nothing more. It may be a convenient course on this occasion to include reference to that particular Section of the Companies Act. By that Section a holding company and a subsidiary company are clearly defined. A holding company is a company where
(a) the amount of the shares so held is at the time when the accounts of the holding company are made up more than 50 per cent. of the issued share capital of that other company or such as to entitle the company to more than 50 per cent. of the voting power in that other company; or
(b) the company has power …directly or indirectly to appoint the majority of the directors of that other company.
That does very clearly define the kind of association that one has in mind. Where companies are thus associated, they are in effect one concern, and there is prima facie no more reason why they should not operate under a "C" licence than any other single firm or company which would be entitled to do so as a matter of course. They should not, in my submission, be subjected to the discretion of the licensing authority as they would be if they had to apply for an "A" or a "B" licence. They should not be compelled to face possible opposition from competing road hauliers who wanted their business or from a railway company, when all that they desire to do
is to carry out their own transport for themselves in the same way that anyone else would be entitled to do. If something of this kind is not done, it seems to me to be a considerable interference with legitimate progress and enterprise.
The Minister was good enough to admit, when this matter was raised in the Committee, that it presented "a perfectly fair case," but at the same time he emphasised the difficulties, which, quite frankly, I fully appreciate, and this Amendment is a sincere effort to overcome those difficulties. Even now I would not like to suggest that it is a perfect form of words, but I think it comes very near meeting the objections that the Minister had and presenting a fair case. It does not cover every situation that might arise, and from that point of view it is not as completely satisfactory as I should have liked, but I trust that, as some concession towards the views of those who attach very great importance to this matter—large groups of companies carrying on big businesses throughout the country—the Minister may see his way to accept this Amendment, and agree that it meets the undesirable effects which he anticipated, and is a legitimate attempt to avoid the worst difficulties that might otherwise confront those big trading concerns.

7.19 p.m.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I beg to second the Amendment.
I noted, in reading the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee stage, that the Minister stated that the case was one of practical effect, but that he thought it was substantially met by the Bill as it stood. I read the rest of his speech with some care, especially that part in which he said that a company would be able to apply for a "B" licence on the condition that it carried only for those particular specified companies. That may be the case, but I do not think it really meets the legitimate case put forward by the companies. I think this Amendment should be able to do so, and I am sure that those who want to have quite a legitimate concession given them would very much appreciate it if this Amendment were, accepted.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Sir G. Rentoul) for one thing.
I remember on one point in Committee receiving a very severe castigation from him on the subject of legislation by reference, and I am glad to see that he is not completely immune from these temptations. Hon. Members will realise that the Amendment with which we are now dealing appeared on the Paper for the first time this morning, and I think that not even my hon. and learned Friend who moved it would expect me at such short notice to be able to give a final opinion on a matter which is bound to be of considerable complication. It is true to say that when my hon. and learned Friend made this point in Committee he was raising a fair point. On the other hand, it is equally true to say that I think it is a point that will in. fact have little practical importance. I do not believe that, even if the Bill were allowed to proceed as it now is, any of those dangers which are feared by those instructing my hon. and learned Friend would in fact be experienced.
The claim is that when you have an associated group of companies, if you have one of those companies which is doing the whole transport work for all the others, it should be able to operate under a "C" licence instead of under an "A" licence, as it would have to do as the Bill stands; or, otherwise, that if there is a practice by which the various component parts of a group use their own transport partly for their own work and partly for carrying the goods of the other members of the group, instead of having to take out a "B" licence, as they would under the Bill, they should be able to take out a "C" licence. My hon. and learned Friend said that they are frightened of the risks of applying for an "A" or a "B" licence and of the discretion of the authority being exercised against them. I cannot believe that where a company or a man applied for a licence to carry goods limited to certain specified individuals, the opposition from competing firms of transport would in fact prevail or that the licensing commissioner would be likely to pay much attention to it. Still, I agree that if they have a theoretical danger that faces them, we ought to deal with It if we can, though I would say that, in view of what I consider to be the small practical effect of this proposal, I certainly should not accept any Amendment
to deal with this question if I had any fear that it might, by some unforeseen method, lead to a considerable weakening of the Clause.
When my hon. and learned Friend moved quite a different Amendment in the Committee stage to deal with this point, I was able to convince him that to have accepted it would almost have driven a coach and four through the "A" and "B" licence provisions in the Bill. I certainly agree with him that this new Amendment, in so far as I have been able to study it this morning, represents a very great advance and certainly is a sincere effort to meet a danger of which he is himself convinced. I am not quite sure that there is not another difficulty which has been overlooked, and that it would not be possible under this new Amendment for a kind of composite licence to be taken out, which would then present great difficulties if it were desired to proceed for breaches of licence against one particular member of a group of companies. But I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend will not expect me to say more than that, in the short time that I have bad to consider this Amendment, I think it goes a long way to meet the dangers which were anticipated from his previous proposal, and that I can promise him that, before the Bill is dealt with in another place, I shall certainly look most closely at this Amendment and that, unless I can find that it contains dangers which at present I do not see, something on these lines will be proposed in another place.

Sir G. RENTOUL: In view of my hon. Friend's undertaking, for which I am greatly obliged, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.25 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I beg to move, in page 2, line 36, to leave out the words "in the case of which," and to insert instead thereof the words:
(including a trailer drawn thereby) in any case where.
This Amendment needs to be considered in connection with the next Amendment on the Paper, to insert the words "in respect of the vehicle," and the effect of the two Amendments is to make the opening words of the Subsection read:
This section shall not apply—
(a) to the use of a vehicle (including a trailer drawn thereby) in any case where the excise duty in respect of the vehicle under Section 13"—
and so on. The object of these two Amendments is to include in the exemption from the licensing provisions of the Bill the trailer which is drawn by an agricultural vehicle, always supposing that the trailer is used subject to conditions similar to those that apply to the vehicle drawing it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 37, after the word "duty," insert the words "in respect of the vehicle."—(Lieut.-Colonel Headlam.)

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I beg to move, in page 2, line 39, to leave out from the word "in," to the word "for," in line 43, and to insert instead thereof the words:
sub-paragraph (a) or sub-paragraph (d) of paragraph 4, or in sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 5, of the Second Schedule to the Finance Act 1920, as amended by the Finance Act, 1933, or any subsequent enactment.
This is a drafting Amendment, and its effect is to replace the reference to earlier Finance Acts by a reference to the Finance Act of this year, which is now on the Statute Book.

Amendment agreed to.

7.27 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I beg to move, in page 3, line 8, to leave out the words "and their effects."

This Amendment and the following Amendment are Government drafting Amendments.

Amendment agreed to

Consequential Amendment made.

7.28 p.m.

Sir PHILIP DAWSON: I beg to move, in page 3, line 9, at the end, to insert the words:
(c) to the use of a vehicle constructed for the carriage of not more than seven passengers and adapted or equipped for the carriage of samples of goods by a commercial traveller or agent where no goads except samples are carried in the vehicle, and where the weight of the goods so carried does not exceed three hundredweights.
The object of this Amendment is to facilitate the use of what may be called
ordinary motor cars by commercial travellers. The objection that was taken upstairs to the Amendment then moved was that it might be possible for a commercial traveller to have such a heavy vehicle that he might also use it for the carriage of goods, and in order to avoid that objection, the Amendment has been altered to the form in which it now appears. From what the Minister said upstairs, I gather that he thought that under no circumstances whatever could an ordinary motor car, adapted and used by a commercial traveller to take his samples about for showing to prospective customers, be classified as a vehicle applying for hire or reward. Therefore, I ask the Minister to give his careful consideration to this Amendment, which will make it more certain that the commercial traveller will not be interfered with and will have the least possible difficulty put in his way in the course of his ordinary daily work.

7.30 p.m.

Captain STRICKLAND: I beg to second the Amendment.
This is an Amendment that should commend itself to the House. It proposes to exempt from the licensing system under the Bill the private car which is converted for the use of a commercial traveller in taking his goods round for exhibition. There is a distinct difference between the goods vehicle which conveys goods for sale and the type of vehicle I have in my mind which is merely used for the purpose of displaying samples. One might imagine that such a vehicle would be excluded from the start from the provisions of the Bill, but unfortunately the wording of Sub-section (2) is:
In this part of this Act the expression 'goods vehicle' means a motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of goods,
and so on.
The type of commercial traveller I have in my mind may have a private car from which, for the accommodation of his goods, he may have removed the back seats and put up racks or a case or some form of covering for the goods that he takes round for exhibition purposes. If some Amendment is not made it can be argued that this particular type of vehicle must come under this Bill, whereas they are really private cars belonging
to the traveller himself, although he is in fact conveying goods for somebody else, namely, his employer. The point was raised in Committee, and the Minister at the time used these words:
I am sure my hon. and learned Friend will agree that the mere fact of putting some racks to carry dresses in the back of a private car would not bring that car within the definition of a goods vehicle and, therefore, would not bring it within the scope of the Act. … there can be no need for apprehension that a traveller who merely fits up the back of a private car for the carriage of his samples will bring himself within the scope of the Bill.
Unfortunately instructions have been issued to the local authorities which issue motor car licences that a private car adapted for the carriage of goods, which would include the rail for dresses or the locker or boxes, are to be classed as goods vehicles for the purposes of licence duty. Then the Minister used these words:
I will certainly tell the Committee that we are at one on this that we all want to exclude from the operation of the Bill the man who merely puts samples in the back of his private car, and, although I am advised that the position is clear now, I will make quite certain between now and the Report stage that in fact a case of that kind is covered.
Later he said:
The promise that I give is with regard to the ordinary passenger car which may have been adapted for the carriage of samples. I give no promise whatsoever with regard to the ordinary goods vehicle which may or may not be said to be adapted for the carriage of samples, but which can in fact be used for the carriage of goods in the ordinary way."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee A), 18th May, 1933; cols. 63–67.]
I am suggesting to the House that it should be made certain in the Bill that the ordinary commercial traveller's private car which is changed or adapted for the carriage of goods not his own should be excluded from the purview of the Measure in accordance with the promise made by the Minister, and particularly in view of the instructions given to the local authorities that such vehicles shall be classed as goods vehicles. In view of the Minister's pledge upstairs, I hope that he will see his way to adopt this Amendment. It will in no way cripple the Bill or go contrary to it. It is not moved with a view to obstruction, but solely to help a worthy type of commercial
gentleman on whom so much of our trade depends and who is worthy of the consideration of this House in every respect.

7.35 p.m.

Mrs. COPELAND: If this Amendment is accepted, may I have an assurance that it will not affect commercial travellers who are carrying pottery? Pottery is very heavy, and if we were to limit the application of the Amendment to goods not exceeding 3 cwts., it might affect some of our pottery commercial travellers who are going round the country with samples of their goods.

7.36 p.m.

Sir B. PETO: I should like to know how the Amendment can ever be carried into effect. Who is to settle that the goods carried in any case exceed 3 cwts., and how are you going to differentiate between goods carried for exhibition and goods which may be left for sale to a customer? The Amendment is not only unworkable, but may cause a breach in the clear distinction between passenger and goods vehicles.

7.37 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: This matter was considered upstairs, and the Minister promised to look into it carefully. He has done so, and he does not think that an Amendment of this kind is necessary in the Bill. As the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) has pointed out, it would be extremely difficult to enforce even if we were willing to accept it. The remark made by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mrs. Copeland) shows how difficult it would be to differentiate in the matter between loads carried by commercial travellers and loads carried by salesmen. This matter is really governed by the provisions of the Finance Act. A goods vehicle under this Bill is the same as under the Finance Act. If a private car is utilised for the purposes of a commercial traveller, it is licensed under the horse power class unless the extent of the adaptation that is made for the purposes of a commercial traveller would cause it to fall within the definition of a goods vehicle. It is a question of fact that has to be decided in each instance. No serious difficulty has been found in the operation of the Finance Act in this matter, and no difficulty is anticipated in connection with the present Bill. If the
vehicle is so comprehensively reconstructed or adapted as to make it a goods vehicle, there is no sufficient reason for exempting the owner from the requirement to take out a licence as laid down in this Bill. In the other case where the alteration is not so great, it would not be necessary for him to take out a licence under this Bill.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Will the Parliamentary Secretary answer the question raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland), who said that instructions had been issued to the local authorities that a private car adapted for the carriage of goods has to be classified as a goods vehicle? There seems to be some conflict between the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary and the giving of these instructions.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I am afraid that I cannot give any other answer than that which I have given. I assure hon. Members that it is perfectly possible to work this under the Finance Act definition. If the adaptations are not of such a large scale as to make a complete change in the vehicle, the vehicle will not require the licence under this Bill.

Sir J. SANDEMAN ALLEN: May I ask whether the fact that a licence has been paid for under the Finance Act will be sufficient evidence that it will not be necessary to get a licence under this Bill? Will the Minister make it clear that there will be no conflict between the two authorities under which a car may come?

Captain STRICKLAND: What would be the Minister's interpretation of Subsection (2) of the Bill, which defines the expression "goods vehicle"? If a back seat of a car is taken out, is that not an adaptation of the vehicle for the carriage of goods? I would like an answer to that point because it all turns upon that irrespective of what may be in any other Act. This Bill lays down definitely that if there is an adaptation of a passenger vehicle so that it can carry goods it shall be classed as a goods vehicle.

7.41 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: In reply to the hon. Member for the West Derby Division (Sir J. Sandeman Allen) I will look into the matter again with a view to making it
clear that similar considerations would apply. I think it is most important that a man should feel that if the matter has already been settled under the Finance Act it is also settled under this Bill. With regard to the point of the hon. and gallant Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland), I am certainly not going to give here an interpretation of a particular definition under an Act of Parliament. These particular words "constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of goods" are the words of the Finance Act, and the result must depend on the facts of each case. When I am asked to deal with goods weighing 3 cwts. and the hon. Member for Stoke (Mrs. Copeland) asks me not to be so mean as to accept only 3 cwts., but let it go higher in the Potteries, where it may reach something like 3 tons, it is clear that we are getting outside the radius of any possible exceptions and are getting into a class of vehicle which should certainly come under the licensing provisions of this Bill.

Captain STRICKLAND: In view of the Minister's promise to look into this matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.43 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I beg to move, in page 3, line 21, at the end, to insert the words:
(f) to the use of a vehicle by a person acting in pursuance of a contract with the Crown for the carriage of goods for, public purposes.
This point has already been mentioned in connection with the Amendment moved by one of my hon. Friends as to rendering Crown vehicles liable to the same incidence as vehicles in the possession of private persons. That Amendment was not accepted, but, as was then stated, the Government propose by the Amendment which I am moving to go even further in the opposite direction than the Bill as it originally stood. It is elementary that an Act of Parliament never binds the Crown except by express mention, and this Bill does not bind the Crown. The purpose of the Amendment is to relieve contractors who are acting in pursuance of a contract with the Crown for the carriage of goods for public purposes from the necessity of complying
with the provisions of this Clause. It will be apparent to anybody on a moment's reflection that the conditions under which contractors to the Crown carry goods for the Crown are really very different in character from the conditions under which persons carry goods for hire or reward for private persons.
The position of vehicles hired by the War Office in times of military manoeuvres was mentioned just now, and one or two hon. Gentlemen were rather inclined to think that that was not a very adequate illustration for excepting contractors for the Crown from the requirements of this Clause. It is but one illustration, but I think it is a very good illustration, because it would be quite impossible for these contractors who are specially hired in a time of military manoeuvres, to comply with the requirements of the Bill as to the conditions under which licences are obtainable.
It may be said that there is no reason why contractors for the Crown should not be liable to precisely the same conditions as other people. Hon. Members who are inclined to take that view should remember that, as the Minister has already reminded the House the Minister is here answerable for anything that is done by persons who contract with the Crown to carry goods on behalf of the Crown. In that respect those persons are in a different position from private contractors. The Minister can be asked questions, he can be made answerable for any faults or omissions of which they may be guilty. There is also this further consequence of any misdeed on their part, that they will most certainly, under the exposure which will always be made in this House, be faced with the consequence of the loss of their contract. In all the circumstances, having regard to the practical impossibility of making these people comply with the conditions on which licences are granted, and to the fact that the Minister is always here to be made answerable for their sins and omissions, I hope that the words propose will be inserted.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is always persuasive in the way in which he presents a case, but it seemed to me that he touched
on this one rather too lightly. He said the Minister would be answerable. Which Minister? The Minister of Transport will not not be answerable in respect of a baker's cart which is delivering bread to a Territorial camp in connection with a contract with the Crown. There is no person who is answerable for such a contractor, and I see no reason at all why vehicles in private ownership which happen to be engaged for the time being in supplying goods for the Crown should be excluded from the various provisions of this Bill, to which they would be liable if this Amendment were not carried. It is a dangerous thing to push too far the principle of excluding Government Departments and their subsidiaries from the normal conditions which apply to the rest of us. I quite agree that the ordinary military vehicle, from the very circumstances under which it has to be maintained, can quite properly be exempt from the Bill, but here we are exempting vehicles—I am not quite certain what the legal interpretation would be—which sometimes would be engaged on ordinary work and at other times be engaged in pursuance of a contract with the Crown for the carriage of goods for public purposes. Indeed, they might be simultaneously engaged on both errands, because the baker on his rounds might deliver so much bread to a camp in pursuance of a contract with the Crown and then come on to my house and deliver bread to me, and when he had unloaded the supply of bread for the Crown—

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do not accept the hon. Member's illustration of a baker delivering bread under an ordinary contract to sell bread to the Crown, but if he was using the vehicle also in his own business he would, of course, have to obtain a licence for the purpose of his private work.

Mr. WILLIAMS: If he happened to be discovered contravening the provisions of the Measure at the moment when he had on his cart the load of bread for the Crown, he would have a perfectly good defence, and I think it is perfectly improper to carry the protection which the Crown gives to its own vehicles to the point of protecting anybody who, for the moment has a contract with the Crown. This is a dangerous principle, and I am surprised that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not made out a better case for the Amendment.

7.50 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: I wish to join in the protest which has been made, and to say that I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman missed the point when dealing with War Office vehicles which he wants exempted. A case that comes to my mind is that of vehicles hired out to the War Office by contractors for use in manoeuvres or by Territorial units. I know of two Territorial units which this year hired such vehicles. Two of the vehicles overturned when they were not in state of complete mechanical upkeep such as would be required under this Measure, and two others broke down for the same reason. Those are cases which actually happened during the last five weeks, and as a Territorial officer I strongly urge that those vehicles should come under this Measure, so that we can be protected against the possibility of such dangerous vehicles being issued by contractors to Territorial units.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. ALED ROBERTS: The point we are now discussing was touched upon, I think, when we discussed the first Amendment to Clause 1, but I am very far from satisfied with the explanation which the Minister gave on that occasion. I see no special justification for exempting from the conditions as to mechanical fitness any vehicle which is working for the Crown under contract. A vehicle belonging to a contractor which is mechanically unfit may hit something or somebody when going along a road and cause damage or kill a person. Its unfitness could have been discovered had it been stopped and examined by an examiner; but if it happens to be working for the Crown it cannot be examined. The contractor may be running a vehicle which is in an unfit condition and to the public danger without there being any chance of checking him. Whatever case there may be for exempting vehicles which belong to the Crown I can see no justification for exempting vehicles belonging to contractors, and I hope the House will reject this Amendment.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. AMERY: The House ought to be quite clear as to the scope of this Amendment. Let me take the case of a contract made by the Crown with a firm of shipbuilders for the building of a battleship.
In pursuance of that contract there would be a great deal of cartage to the shipyard of parts constructed at some armament works some distance away. There would be a cartage of special timber, special metal, an enormous amount of cartage, all of it under conditions different in no essential from the cartage involved in the construction of an ordinary commercial vessel or a battleship for a foreign country. In the same way the Crown might be erecting a fresh block of buildings. A great deal of cartage would be involved under conditions in no respect different from those to which this Bill is specifically intended to apply. Are we to understand that in all the cases I have indicated there is to be complete exemption from the provisions which otherwise would apply under this Bill? If there is to be such exemption it seems to me that a dangerously wide gap is being driven into the provisions of the Bill, and that we are introducing a very unsatisfactory in-and-out condition as regards responsibility and licences. If it be desirable to make special provisions for transport engaged on manoeuvres, and so on, surely it should be possible to draw up an Amendment of much narrower cope. I hope the Minister will carefully consider that point.

7.55 p.m.

Sir REGINALD BANKS: It seems to me that there is some substance and force in the observations made by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), but is he not forgetting the fact that the Bill as it stands says that this Clause shall not apply to the use of a vehicle by a local authority or any person acting in pursuance of a contract with a local authority? I may be making a mistake, but it occurs to me that the illustration he has just given will apply to the contracts with local authorities. The gentleman who is carrying loaves—

Mr. STANLEY: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman has not realised that the exemption in the case of local authorities is restricted to vehicles used for certain purposes, such as road watering.

Sir R. BANKS: I misapprehended that point. It seemed to me, if we were going to allow this exemption in favour of local authorities, that it was rather like straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel to object to similar provisions in the case of contracts with the Crown.

7.56 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If I may speak again by leave of the House, I think hon. Members give a much wider interpretation to the words than they really bear. The case put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) was far outside the meaning of the words, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Spark-brook (Mr. Amery) envisaged cases which are not covered by the words in question.

Mr. AMERY: I was inquiring.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The words in question deal with the use of a vehicle,
in pursuance of a contract with the Crown for the carriage of goods for public purposes.
In my view those words do not cover a case where a person is, for instance, building a battleship or erecting a building for the Crown and, for the purpose of completing his contract, has to carry bricks or stones or steel plates or iron girders. All that is intended to be covered is a contract for the carriage of goods for public purposes, and the Amendment does not cover the carriage of goods by persons who are carrying out a contract with the Crown such as the erection of a building or the building of a battleship. The intention of the Minister is far from what has been suggested, namely, that there should be a general freedom from restriction, without proper conditions, for all people who would come within the class of cases mentioned this afternoon; and the Minister authorises me to say that he will most certainly see whether the Amendment can be drawn in a much narrower form, so as to cover those cases which I think everybody has recognised ought properly to be excluded.

7.58 p.m.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I would like to ask whether the Minister will introduce the Amendment he has promised—the Amendment in a narrower form—in another place, because I am bound to say that in its existing form it still appears to be so wide that it would include a great many kinds of work in respect of which one would imagine a person ought not to enjoy immunity from having to procure a licence. I can well understand that while it would not serve to cover a person carrying goods to complete
an object which he was making for the Government, it well might cover that person, carrying exactly the same class of goods, if he were carrying them to a Government factory which was making exactly the same object. If the Government were constructing a naval vessel in the West of England I cannot believe that a person who was carrying material for that vessel to the Government dockyard would not enjoy immunity under this Amendment, whereas if precisely a similar vessel was being made by contract, the person who was carrying the material for the company to make it would not get any immunity. I am sure that that is not intended. There are other points which could be put, but which I will not put to-night. If the Minister could tell us what he proposes to do, we should be grateful. I assume that this is to be put right in another place, and perhaps I may ask this question without losing any of my right to make a further criticism.

8.1 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I think that the House has made a genuine attempt to decide this Amendment upon its merits. We realise the point that it is desired to meet, and our only anxiety is that, in meeting that point, we should not go far beyond it. In view of what has been said, I think that the most satisfactory course would be that I should now ask leave of the House to withdraw the Amendment. In another place, I should not be precluding myself in any way from putting down the same Amendment again, if I cannot find narrower words to cover my point. As the hon. and learned Member for Swindon (Sir R. Banks) suggested, I will see whether I can find a form of words to cover the object which, we all agree, should be covered.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.2 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I beg to move, in page 3, line 24, after the word "refuse," to insert the words:
night-soil or the contents of cesspools, or for the purposes of the enactments relating to weights and measures or the sale of food and drugs.
The word "refuse," is not wide enough to include such matters as the contents of cesspools. The first part of the Amendment is therefore put in to remove any doubt on this matter. The second
part of the Amendment deals with the special vehicles used by local authorities in the discharge of their duties, not only in regard to cesspools, but also in regard to weights and measures under the Food and Drugs Act. It is perhaps unfortunate that food and drugs should be asociated with refuse, but the Amendment is necessary for clarity's sake.

Amendment agreed to.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, in page 3, line 30, at the end, to insert the words:
or for removing goods from a disabled vehicle to a place of safety.
The point was specially raised in Committee by an hon. Member as to a "C" licence-holder who came upon a lorry which had been broken down and its goods perhaps scattered all over the road. He would, under the Bill as drafted, only be allowed to pick up those goods and take them away to some place of safety and dispose of them, at any rate so far as the public highway was concerned, if he had taken no money for doing it. It is clearly to the advantage of the general public that, if a thing of that kind does happen, goods should be disposed of at the earliest possible moment. We make it possible by this Amendment for a "C" licence-holder to do a bit of salvage work of that kind, even for money, without bringing himself into the ambit of the "A" licence-holder.

Amendment agreed to.

8.4 p.m.

Mr. McKEAG: I beg to move, in page 3, line 30, after the words last inserted, to insert the words:
(i) to the use of a vehicle specially constructed and exclusively used as a hearse.
It is rather an unhappy and gruesome subject, and I propose to deal with it with as much brevity as possible. I have put down the Amendment as the result of an undertaking which was given by the Minister when this matter was raised in Committee. I would like to call the attention of the House to the fact that, on that occasion, the Minister said:
I think, whatever the logical view may be, that probably the Committee will agree with me in accepting, not necessarily finally in this form of words, some form of words which will exempt vehicles engaged for funeral purposes from the scope of this Bill."—OFFICIAL REPORT, (Standing Committee A), 18th May, 7933; col. 77.]
All I am asking now is that the undertaking then given should be carried out. In passing, I would like to call attention to the very definite nature of the words of the Amendment. They prevent the possibility of any vehicle used for the dual purpose being excluded from the provisions of this Bill. I understand that the Minister has been somewhat embarrassed during the last few days by representations which have been made to him suggesting that it is not the desire of the members of the Undertakers' Association that they should be excluded from the provisions of this Bill. I want to clear up any misapprehension there may be in the Minister's mind as to that. I am able to assure him that the Parliamentary Committee which was appointed by the annual Conference of the British Undertakers' Association—

Mr. STANLEY: When?

Mr. McKEAG: I cannot give the exact date of the annual conference, but the Parliamentary Committee of the British Undertakers' Association decided—and even approached the Minister on it, I believe—that motor hearses should be excluded from the operation of the Bill, Subsequently, a minority section of the association opposed that decision, and, as a result, a Parliamentary Committee was held, and was attended by Members from the dissenting areas, for the purpose of deciding the matter. They were specially co-opted to the Parliamentary Committee. The result was to reaffirm the previous decision of the Committee by a considerable majority. I understand that the view of the Parliamentary Committee has received further support from influential motor-hearse owners in Scotland.
In round figures, the Parliamentary Committee is in favour of exclusion to the extent of 80 per cent. of the actual owners of funeral transport, as against 20 per cent. dissenters, who are, I understand, principally job masters, and not undertakers in the real sense of the word. I cannot escape the conclusion that any section which desires to be brought within the provisions of this Bill must have an axe to grind. I have taken some trouble, since then, to ascertain what is exactly the position. I have to-day been waited on by Members of both sides, and I have been able to come to some decision in my own mind. It is clear to me that the real motive of those who
desire to be included within the scope of the Bill is that they hope they may be placed in a position to be able to object to any licence being granted to any other person for the use of a motor hearse in future. By this means, I suppose, they hope to enjoy what would be a virtual monopoly. That, I submit, is a selfish interest which this House should not encourage.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do so because of the strong representations which I have received from my constituents. In the last few days, the transport of my constituents while they are alive has come under the London Passenger Transport Board. It was previously in the hands of private operators in the municipality, and my constituents have lost the opportunity of being transported, except by an institution over which the Minister has a certain amount of control. They feel that, when they take their last journeys as passengers, they might escape this control for the only possible time that they will have. Seriously, there is very strong opposition. It is partly sentimental, and we all sympathise with it. It is a little difficult to find out what the position actually is, because some of the people concerned call themselves undertakers, some funeral furnishers, and those who have been to America call themselves morticians. There seems to be a material degree of disagreement among them, especially so far as they may happen to come from Yorkshire. The real objection to our Amendment comes from Yorkshire. Yorkshire is a county which contains both Hull and Halifax; that may explain to some extent why they hold these very strong views. One of the objections from Yorkshire to not being brought into the Bill was the bad state of trade. In those circumstances, they ought to be moving the reduction of the salary of the Minister of Health.
It appears, so far as I can find out, that 80 per cent., or 90 per cent., of those engaged in this industry desire that these vehicles should be excluded from the Bill, largely, as I have said, on sentimental grounds. Because a small minority carry on their business in a way which is not typical of the majority, they themselves
not being vehicle owners, I do not think that that minority should be permitted to overrule the great majority. I am told, in a document which has been lent to me and which comes from the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee of the British Undertakers' Association, that, so far as they can find out, there are not more than 5 per cent. of the actual undertakers of the country who are in opposition to the Amendment which I am now seconding. I understand that the Minister is perfectly willing to agree to the Amendment, provided that he is satisfied that it substantially represents the point of view of the industry. As it now substantially represents the point of view of the industry, I hope that he will see his way to accept it.

8.13 p.m.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "constructed" to insert the words "or adapted."
I should like to support the Amendment which is before the House, and if it is to be accepted by the Minister I hope that he may see his way to accept the manuscript Amendment, which I have handed in and which I am now moving. I do this for practical reasons, and in order to give equality of opportunity among the owners of hearses. A vehicle can be exclusively used as a hearse, and only so exclusively used, not only if it is so constructed, but if it is so adapted afterwards. I can give the House my own experience. Up to last Christmas, I was using a motor car constructed for the ordinary use of passengers. I had a somewhat bad accident, and I disposed of the motor car this spring. It is now being used as a hearse.

HON. MEMBERS: Too late.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is possible that it might have served a more deadly purpose previously, if I had not been driving with exceeding care. It is now being exclusively used as a hearse, and it is so adapted that it can only be used for that purpose. I think that in these circumstances, whether my proposed words are inserted here or in another place, it would be well worth while for the Minister to give this concession. It is true that, as has been said by the Mover and Seconder of the
Amendment, the overwhelming proportion of these undertakers are in favour of the concession, and it is one which, if the Minister could see his way to grant it, would be incapable of extension, and in which a line of discrimination could easily be drawn, so that a similar privilege could not be asked for in respect of anything else.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to move the insertion of these words as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Yes, Sir; if I may be allowed to move these words, and if they would be accepted by the Mover of the Amendment, I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "constructed," to insert the words "or adapted."

Mr. McKEAG: I have no objection to the insertion of these additional words, provided that it does not prejudice the Minister's acceptance of the Amendment which I originally moved.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: Would they mean that the concession would apply to a vehicle adapted for permanent use as a hearse, or only for purposes of temporary use?

8.17 p.m.

Mr. LEVY: I want to oppose both the original Amendment and the proposed Amendment to it, because the information which I have is in complete conflict with that which has been given to the House by both the Mover and the Seconder.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think it would meet the convenience of the House if we first disposed of the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, and then got back to the Amendment itself. Perhaps the Minister will express his view on the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I am going to ask the House to reject both the original Amendment and the right hon. Gentleman's proposed Amendment to it. Frankly, I have not had time to consider whether the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment would add to the value of the original Amendment if it were accepted. All I can say is that, as I am at present advised, the addition
or omission of the words proposed by my right hon. Friend would not alter my purpose.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the Mover of the original Amendment appears to think that my proposed Amendment might conceivably prejudice the consideration of his case, on which we have yet to hear the Minister's final decision, I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

8.19 p.m.

Mr. LEVY: I want to oppose this Amendment, because, as I was saying, the information which I have is in direct conflict with the information given to the House by both the Mover and the Seconder. Early this afternoon, a deputation of the British Undertakers' Association waited upon me, and I understand that 80 per cent. of the trade are in favour of being allowed to remain, and hope to be allowed to remain, in the Bill. When my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) says that this is a Yorkshire proposition, and that the number in favour of being in the Bill is infinitesimal, may I say that the Yorkshire area, the Lancashire area, and the Eastern area constitute three-fifths of the whole of the members of the association, and my information is that 80 per cent. of the trade desire to be in the Bill? With the permission of the House, I would like to read the resolution which has been passed, after very careful consideration of the Bill. I might mention in passing that the Amendment was only put on the Paper last night, and they regard this as so grave a matter that they journeyed from Yorkshire to London for the purpose of asking me, as a Member for a constituency in Yorkshire, to oppose the Amendment. This is the resolution which has been passed:
That the meeting of the Council of the British Undertakers' Association, after having carefully considered the Road and Rail Traffic Bill, are of the unanimous opinion that the best interests of the public at large and the trade in general would be best served by the inclusion of the motor hearse in the Bill, as proposed by the Minister.
I do not propose to labour the point, because it is certainly a morbid subject, but I hope that the Minister will not
accept this Amendment. By not accepting it he will be doing what I understand is desired by 80 per cent. of the trade.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I have noticed a rather strange phenomenon in connection with this Amendment. While I think that those who listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. McKeag), when he was introducing it, realised that the company which he has been keeping during the last few days has had a considerable effect upon his general demeanour and the manner in which he moved the Amendment, the tendency on the part of other Members of the House has been to treat this question, not, of course, with levity, but without that morbidity which one might possibly have expected in connection with such a subject. As my hon. Friend the Member for Elland (Mr. Levy) has just said, it is indeed a grave matter.
I am, of course, in considerable difficulty with regard to it. It is quite true that during the Committee stage I gave an undertaking—or perhaps it would be better to say a promise—that I would exclude these vehicles from the operation of the Bill; but I did so, of course, on the understanding, which was certainly conveyed to me by my hon. Friend at that time, that the industry as a whole wanted them to be excluded. I naturally understood that he was speaking on their behalf. It is a matter of considerable regret to me now to find that there does not exist in this profession the harmony which would be more in keeping with the solemn functions which it has to perform. The idea that the hand of the mortician should be raised against the undertaker, and that both, apparently, should be opposed to the funeral furnisher, is an idea which gives one considerable pain, but the fact is that, since I made that promise in Committee, I have received resolutions from what I understand to be the three biggest branches of the Undertakers' Association—the Northumberland and Durham Branch, the Yorkshire Branch, and the Lancashire Branch; and all those resolutions were passed, two unanimously and one by a large majority, for the purpose of inducing me to leave to these gentlemen the, advantages of the Bill, and of protesting against their exclusion at the instance of what they claim is a quite non-representative central body—or, perhaps,
I had better say central committee—in London. I am informed that the membership of these branches constitutes not an insignificant minority of the total of the Undertakers' Association but something like 55 per cent.
There is clearly here a conflict of evidence. I am prepared to stand by the promise that I gave in Committee provided it can be shown that the general desire of the association lies that way. I certainly should not allow myself to be deterred from that by a really insignificant minority. On the other hand, I am faced with the assertion that this I.L.P. in the funereal world commands a majority of the whole association. In these circumstances I should not be prepared to go forward, and I feel that it is not possible at the moment to accept the Amendment. I will confer with the hon. Member as to how we can arrive at a real knowledge of the state of opinion in this profession. Of course, it will always be possible for me, when something more approaching unanimity is reached, to provide for it either in another place or, if they should not reach unanimity in time for that, there would remain the alternative of dealing with the matter by Regulation.

Sir J. LAMB: I should like to know how this would affect anyone residing in a remote country district who uses a farm vehicle for the conveyance of a coffin.

Mr. STANLEY: If my hon. Friend looks at the Amendment, he will see that the vehicle has to be specially constructed, and, unless the farmer whom he has in mind constructs his farm vehicle specially for use as a hearse, it will not come within the Amendment.

Sir J. LAMB: That is the Amendment, which is not going to be accepted. I want to know whether these vehicles will come under the Bill and will require a licence.

Mr. STANLEY: They will be under the Bill, presumably, as agricultural vehicles.

Mr. McKEAG: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to have a joint meeting of both sections of the association with some official of his Department to decide which section speaks for the larger number?

Mr. STANLEY: That will, perhaps, be the best solution.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. McKEAG: I beg to move, in page 3, line 39, after the word "used," to insert the word "knowingly."

Mr. STANLEY: On a point of Order. May I ask what the hon. Member is moving?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is a manuscript Amendment.

Mr. McKEAG: I handed it in at the Table, and I expected it would have reached the Minister.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is an hon. Member who has not handed a copy of his manuscript Amendment to the Minister to be allowed to discuss it? We handed in a manuscript Amendment in Committee, and, because the Minister had not received a copy of it, it was pushed on one side for the time being.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: What may have happened in Committee upstairs is no concern of mine, and I am not informed whether a, copy has been banded to the Minister or not. There is nothing disorderly in the Amendment, and there is no reason why it should not be selected.

Mr. McKEAG: The Minister is familiar with the Amendment, because a similar one was moved in Committee, though in a somewhat different form. A Division was taken and it received sufficient support to justify me raising it now. I was supported in the Division by Members of the official Opposition and I ask them to support it again. It simply requires that there shall be guilty knowledge on the part of anyone charged with committing an offence under the Act. The Attorney-General in Committee suggested that a. man who was charged would only have to say that he had contravened the provisions of the Act unknowingly to be acquitted. That, of course, is not the case. It will be a matter for the magistrates themselves to decide and, if they felt that the man had acted in disregard of the Act, all his protestations that he had acted unknowingly would be of no avail at all. Then there is the case of the employé who is ordered by his master to proceed on a journey with a goods vehicle which ought to be licensed. Is he required to address to his master all sorts of interrogatories as to whether this or that requirement of the Act has been fulfilled
or not? That is an impossible position, and it would be a monstrous thing for a man to be punished in such circumstances. On the other hand, you have the case of a master whose servant takes out a vehicle without the authority and knowledge of his master. It would be a grave injustice if the master were to be convicted in such circumstances, especially when one bears in mind that, not only might he be convicted, but, if he were convicted in those circumstances, it might jeopardise his licence under the provisions of the Act. It is too serious a matter to be left in the wording at present in the Bill. It should be left to the discretion of the magistrates. They should not be compelled to convict in cases which would inflict real hardship simply because of the rigidity of these words. I was much heartened in my advocacy of this Amendment upstairs by the support of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley), who spoke with all the experience of a King's Counsel, a Chairman of Quarter Sessions, and a Recorder. He said, after the learned Attorney-General had spoken:
Surely the speech of the learned Attorney-General does not do him justice. The word 'knowingly' here has nothing to do with knowledge of the Act of Parliament. It is a question of whether a man knowingly takes out a vehicle that is not licensed. Suppose an employer says to his man, 'You take this vehicle'"—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Member that his Amendment as he has moved it, would not affect the person who takes out a vehicle, but only the purpose for which it is to be used.

Mr. McKEAG: I must bow to your Ruling, but I am simply pointing out that the speech of the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead definitely dealt with the word "knowingly." This is what he said as to that:
The English law of old always required what is called mens rea; that is to say, he must have a knowledge that he was doing wrong, and the knowledge that he was doing wrong does not mean knowledge of the law. He is presumed to have that knowledge. It means knowledge of the fact. Every driver of a vehicle is to be liable to a penalty here, where he is misled. This would be a gross injustice, and I hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division, in which case I shall support him."-[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee A), 23rd May, 1933; col. 107.]
Surely the Minister will be influenced by this expression of very experienced opinion and permit the word "knowingly" to be inserted in the Bill. It would not weaken the effect of the Bill at all, but would certainly prevent the creation and infliction of hardships and injustices.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. MALLALIEU: I beg to second the Amendment.
I am thinking especially of the hardship which would be caused by the Bill as it stands in the case of an agent about to have some work done by a man to whom he gives a contract. In the Road Traffic Act, 1930, a similar Clause to this was inserted, and it is almost common form now to insert it in such a Bill as this. If under the present wording of the Bill a man were to contract out the use of a vehicle thereby permitting it to be used, even if he made proper inquiries of the person to whom he was giving the job and said, "Are all the licences in order," and the person replied, "Yes, they are in order," if they were not in order, he would apparently be liable to considerable penalties. It seems to be contrary to what I imagine is the intention of the Minister on this point. Now that legislation and the knowledge of the facts necessary to constitute an offence are so complicated, I hope that the Minister, at any rate, will make it plain that nobody is to suffer the penalties of the Act unless he knows or should know that he has committed an offence under it.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: The hon. Member who seconded the Amendment asked for my serious consideration. I would point out to him that the consideration I should have been able to give to it would have been much more serious and fruitful if I had been given a little longer notice of the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman says that he handed it in to the Chair in manuscript form. As he knows, it is common courtesy to do that. But it is not only common courtesy but common desire in order to have your own case properly met, to give the Minister notice as well. Until the hon. Gentleman rose neither I nor the House knew of the existence of this Amendment.

Mr. McKEAG: Surely the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance that I fully believed that, having handed in the Amendment at the Table, it would reach the Minister.

Mr. STANLEY: Certainly, but I am only telling the hon. Gentleman that it did not in fact happen. Until the hon. Gentleman got up to move the Amendment I had no knowledge of it. I think that probably the House is under the same difficulty. I doubt if there are many hon. Members who, if suddenly challenged, would know exactly where the word "knowingly" was to come in, and it makes a lot of difference. My hon. Friend says that he moved the Amendment in Committee, but as far as I can judge from the look I have had at the manuscript Amendment which he has handed in, when he moved the word "knowingly" in Committee, he moved it in a different place. He now wants to put it in so that the provision shall read:
If any person uses a vehicle, or causes or permits a vehicle to be used, knowingly.

Sir S. CRIPPS: After the comma, "knowingly."

Mr. STANLEY: It is after the word "used"—"to be used knowingly."

Sir S. CRIPPS: Before the comma, or after the comma?

Mr. STANLEY: I do not think that my hon. Friend specified that. It raises considerable difficulties wherever it is. The House will realise that on a clearly technical and legal matter of this kind my right hon. and learned Friend, who has been in attendance all the evening, had he known that the Amendment was to be moved, would have been here to give the House the benefit of his advice. I cannot myself attach a meaning to the Amendment as it is now moved, and I must rely, therefore, upon the statement which my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General made to the Committee when this word was moved at a different place, and, I think, at a place which would have covered the whole of this Sub-section. My right hon. and learned Friend said that lie felt that the addition of this word would not in fact be necessary in the interests that we all have of seeing that the innocent man does not suffer penalties.
I do not think that anyone would really say that a court would apply a penalty to anyone in the sort of circumstances that have been quoted in support of the Amendment. On the other hand, speaking as a layman, I can see considerable difficulty in definitely inserting the word "knowingly." It would seem to me to put upon the prosecution a bigger onus of proof than they ought to bear and to enable the man who has allowed his driver to break the law, with full knowledge, to get off, because it would be impossible for the prosecution actually to prove knowledge, which anyone who heard the case would properly assume from the circumstances. It is most unfortunate that I, not being a lawyer—

Sir S. CRIPPS: Not a lawyer?

Mr. STANLEY: Well, a lawyer of very modest pretensions, should have to advise the House on this subject, but I do feel that to insert the word where it is proposed to insert it would mean nothing at all, would be but little protection to the innocent man and might lead to considerable evasion by just the type of employer we want to get at under this Act.

Mr. G. HALL: Although we did support an Amendment in Committee which asked for the insertion of the word "knowingly," we had two similar Amendments down later in the Bill which we did not move for the reasons explained in Committee. Therefore we do not propose to-night to follow the hon. Member if he takes the Amendment to a Division.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 2.—(Classes of licences.)

8.47 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I beg to move, in page 4, line 9, at the end, to insert the words:
or, in the case of a person operating a canal, dock, or harbour undertaking, for or in connection with that undertaking.
The Sub-section provides that the holder of an "A" licence may use his authorised vehicles for or in connection with his business of carrier of goods for hire or reward. In view of the fact that many canal and dock undertakings are not themselves carriers of goods, it has been thought that it might not be possible for them to operate their vehicles under an "A" licence both for collection and delivery of goods and for the
purposes of their undertakings, and the proposed words are sought to be inserted to mare it clear that they can do so. The Amendment removes any doubt as to their ability to do so. It has not been necessary to include a railway company among the undertakings referred to in the Amendment as it is clear that every railway company is in fact in business as a carrier of goods.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 4, line 13, leave out the words "other than," and insert instead thereof the word "except."—[Lieut.-Colonel Headlam.]

8.49 p.m.

Mr. ALED ROBERTS: I beg to move, in page 5, line 5, at the end, to insert the words:
(d) such number and description of motor vehicles, to be designated reserve vehicles, as is specified in the licence so that on any occasion when an authorised vehicle specified in the licence is not available for use in consequence of an accident or through having been withdrawn from use for repair a reserve vehicle may be used instead of the authorised vehicle, and shall during the period of such use be deemed to be an authorised vehicle.
It is a disappointment to me to have to move this Amendment, because in Committee we had an almost exhaustive and most friendly Debate on the subject. We finished off with the usual compliments, and the Minister said that he would endeavour to introduce something of the kind. It is only because my expectations were not realised when I saw the Government Amendments that I am moving my Amendment now. It is a point of very great importance to a large number of people. As the Bill now stands, every individual motor vehicle which is to be allowed to run on the roads has to be mentioned specifically and described in the licence, and the licence holder will not be allowed in any circumstances to use any other vehicle unless it is specified individually and in detail on his licence. So far as it goes that proposal meets with no objection, but it is when we come to an emergency that some further consideration is required. The case that I am putting forward is the occasion where an authorised vehicle which is specified in the licence is not available for use, in consequence of an accident or because it has been withdrawn from use for repair, and I am asking the Minister and
the House to insert in the Bill some provision by which a reserve of vehicles may be specified on the licence.
The Minister has discovered, in some way or other, that there are difficulties in the way of carrying out this proposal and I rather suspect the difficulty is the one which he mentioned in Committee, that you cannot specify a vehicle in a licence and you cannot hold a vehicle in reserve unless the vehicle exists. He presumes that if it exists it is on some licence somewhere else. As I pointed out in Committee, there are numbers of haulage contractors and perhaps private firms who will have "A" licences who endeavour to maintain their vehicles in a fit and proper condition now before the passing of this Act, and they will no doubt continue to do so after the Act comes into force. For that purpose they have spare vehicles which are used to replace portions of their regular fleet as and when they require overhauling, or in the event of an accident or when they require repair. A firm of that kind which has always run its business on those lines will not be in a position to put a vehicle on the road under this Bill unless they go to the Traffic Commissioners and get a special temporary licence for the purpose.
That is going to be a very great hardship, and a hardship all the more when we consider that the number of vehicles which can be licensed by an "A" or "B" class licence holder in the first instance is only the maximum weight of vehicles which he had during the year ending 31st March last. It is therefore obvious that the contention which the Minister had previously made that such a person can ask for some extra vehicles to be specified cannot be carried out. Anyone applying for a licence, especially an "A" or "B" licence, is not going to get that licence simply by walking into the office and asking for it. It is obvious from the proposals in later Clauses, especially Clause 10, that there is going to be a great deal of opposition in many cases, and it must be clear that unless a man can put forward the minimum requirements he is not going to get any margin on his licence. The actual details as to how my proposal could be worked out are not very difficult. They are dealt with daily by insurance companies. The Minister under Clause 22 (d) could easily
make regulations as regards the use of licence plates. If that is not done the temptation is going to be to keep vehicles on the road when they should not be on the road, and it will accentuate the difficulty of haulage contractors in regard to the replacement of vehicles.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. MALLALIEU: I beg to second the Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: It is perfectly true, as the hon. Member has said, that we discussed this matter at some length in Committee in the most amicable manner. It was, in fact, the most amicable Committee which ever sat, and we are grateful to the hon. Member and his friends for the way they treated us. But in spite of the good feeling which exists between us the Government cannot agree to the Amendment. Its object is to include amongst the authorised vehicles a number of vehicles which can be kept in reserve and used by the operator when some of his vehicles are out of action by being overhauled or for some other reason. We believe that every efficient operator will carry a reserve of vehicles to meet a contingency of this kind, and the licensing authorities will have this in mind when hearing applications for licences. The operator will allow for reserve vehicles when he makes his application under the heading of vehicles which are in his possession or which will come within his hiring margin. In these circumstances the Amendment is not required, and if it was adopted it would put the licensing authorities in some difficulty because they would have no control over the quantum of vehicles on the roads as a whole. They would not know how many vehicles there were on the roads. I hope the hon. Member will withdraw the Amendment.

8.57 p.m.

Captain STRICKLAND: I support the Amendment from a purely business point of view. The Parliamentary Secretary has expressed a pious hope that the licensing authorities will take into consideration the fact that hauliers will require a larger number of vehicles than those specified on the road at any one time, but whatever may be the kindly intentions of the Government, unless they are prepared to issue instructions to the licensing authority that they shall take the actual number of vehicles for one
period, that is a year, as laid down in the Bill and license them, plus a margin of vehicles, it will not matter very much what are the kindly intentions of the Minister of Transport but will depend on the view the licensing authorities take. When a man applies for a licence he has to state the greatest weight he carried during the previous 12 months and he will be awarded so many licences to cover a similar amount. The amount of tonnage which is produced before the licensing authorities will be the tonnage which he found it necessary to keep on the roads, and if an instruction was given that over and above that amount there should he a reserve fleet of vehicles to take the place of disabled vehicles there would be very little complaint. We shall have to administer an Act of Parliament laid down in cold hard print, without any of that warm feeling which existed in the Committee upstairs, where it was all give on one side and all take on the other. I submit, as a business proposition, that the suggestion is perfectly reasonable, that over and above this amount there should he a right on the part of haulage contractors to send out at a moment's notice a reserve of vehicles, otherwise he might be tempted to risk a breakdown of a vehicle because of having no other vehicle to take its place unless he goes before the licensing authorities for a fresh licence for the additional vehicle. This Amendment should be accepted by the Government from a business point of view, and I hope the House will show its interest in the business side of this matter rather than in the pious hopes of the Parliamentary Secretary that the licensing authorities will take a certain line of action in the matter.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 3.—(Duration of licences.)

9.2 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I beg to move, in page 5, line 27, to leave out from the beginning to the word "(in," in line 28, and to insert instead thereof the words:
the period for which a licence may be granted.
This is a drafting Amendment, and the further Amendments to this Clause are consequential.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 5, line 29, at the end, insert the words "shall be."

In line 30, leave out the word "for."

In line 31, leave out the word "for."

In line 32, leave out the word "for."—(Lieut.-Colonel Headlam.)

CLAUSE 5.—(Procedure on applications for licences.)

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I beg to move, in page 7, line 23, to leave out the words "the case of an application," and to insert instead thereof the words "particular, an applicant."
This is another drafting Amendment. The Clause, owing to the Amendments made in Committee, is rather clumsy and this Amendment, as well as the succeeding Amendments, makes it clear.

Amendment agreed to.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I beg to move, in page 8, line 9, to leave out paragraph (d).
In Committee the Minister of Transport said that he would consider whether the information asked for in this paragraph was really necessary and whether it was not rather inquisitive on the part of a licensing authority. We have considered the matter carefully and have come to the conclusion that the Clause does carry the inquisition rather too far.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 8, line 28, after the word "authority," insert the word "either."

In line 29, leave out the words "either the head office or."

In line 30, at the end, insert the words "or for the area in which his head office is situated."—[Mr. Stanley.]

CLAUSE 6.—(Discretion of licensing authority as to grant or refusal of licences.)

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I beg to move, in page 9, line 7, to leave out Subsection (2), and to insert instead thereof the words:
(2) The licensing authority in exercising his discretion shall have regard primarily to the interests of the public generally, including those of persons requiring, as well as those of persons providing, facilities for transport and, in particular, shall have regard in title case of an application for an "A" licence or for a "B" licence,—

(a) where the applicant is the holder of an existing licence of the same class, to the extent to which he is authorised to use goods vehicles thereunder for the carriage of goods for hire or reward;
(b) to the previous conduct of the applicant in the capacity of a carrier of goods;
(c) to the number and type of vehicles proposed to be used under the licence;

and, in the case of an application for a "B" licence, also to the extent to which the applicant intends that the vehicles proposed to be used under the licence shall be used for the carriage of goods for hire or reward.
This is really a redraft of the Subsection in the Bill, with the addition of the words:
shall have regard primarily to the interests of the public generally, including those of persons requiring, as well as those of persons providing, facilities for transport.
There was considerable discussion of this Sub-section in Committee, and the Minister gave an undertaking that before the Report stage he would consider a suitable form of words. The redrafted Sub-section carries out the wish that was expressed in the Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

9.8 p.m.

Sir G. RENTOUL: I beg to move, in page 9, line 30, at the end, to insert the words:
(3) In any case in which the licensing authority refuses to grant a licence or grants a licence which differs from the licence applied for or imposes conditions to which the applicant does not agree the licensing authority shall if requested by the applicant state the reasons for his decision.
I hope that the Minister may take the view that this Amendment is a very reasonable one, and that it deserves his sympathetic consideration and acceptance. Surely it is only common fairness that an applicant to whom a licence is refused should, at his request, have a written statement of the reasons which have brought about such a refusal, in order, if for no other purpose, that he may consider his position and decide whether he has any reasonable prospects of success on appeal. I moved in Committee an Amendment which had a, similar design but one which went rather further than this Amendment. That Amendment would have required a statement of the reasons to be given in writing by the licensing authority in the case of every refusal. I agreed with the
Minister that that was unnecessary, but at the same time I confess that the reply which the Minister gave on the point hardly did him justice. He generally is so very convincing, from his own point of view, but on that occasion his reply was entirely unsatisfactory. He said that the reason why he could not accept the Amendment was not that he was unsympathetic to the object aimed at, but that he thought the Amendment would not attain the effect that I had in mind. His reason was that the licensing authority would probably fulfil this duty, if it was placed upon it, in a merely formal and perfunctory manner, which would be of no assistance to the applicant.
There might be something in that contention if you were to put a statutory obligation on the licensing authority to give a statement in writing in every case, but the Minister will see that the Amendment I am now moving differs very substantially from the Amendment which I moved in Committee, because this Amendment will require the licensing authority to give a statement in writing only at the request of the applicant. The Minister also said in Committee that it would surely be sufficient for the applicant if he got a statement of the reasons for the refusal when he lodged his appeal. That seemed to me entirely to miss the point. What I was anxious about was that the applicant should have an opportunity of considering and if necessary taking advice as to his prospects of success on appeal, and that he should not be put to the inconvenience and expense of having actually to lodge an appeal before he could obtain a statement in writing of the reasons for refusing his application.
I think that the Minister accepts the principle of this Amendment, because during the Committee stage he accepted, in Clause 11, Subsection (2), a provision that at the request of the applicant a statement of the reasons in writing should be given in every case where there had been a revocation or suspension of a licence. If there is to be a statement in writing in those cases, why on earth should there not equally be a statement in writing when the application for a licence is refused in the first place? It is a, perfectly simple thing for the authority to state a case, as it were, when asked to do so. The Minister said in Committee that he wanted the applicant to
get the best he could get, and he was very anxious that any applicant whose application was refused should not go away with a sense of grievance. Unless the Minister accepts this Amendment, that is certain to happen. My original Amendment, the Minister suggested, might work in practice to the detriment of the applicant. That criticism cannot apply to the Amendment I am now moving, because it refers only to a case where the applicant makes a formal application for a statement in writing of the reason for the refusal of a licence, and it also covers the case where there is a variation of the conditions on which a licence is granted.

9.13 p.m.

Captain STRICKLAND: I beg to second the Amendment.
I would say to hon. Members, put yourselves in the position of one of these road hauliers, particularly those of more humble origin who have gone to a licensing authority with an application for an "A" or "B" licence. The application is turned down. The applicant is not told why. There may be no evidence at all given in his presence. At any rate he is told that he cannot have a licence. He naturally feels that he is perfectly justified in his application or he would not have made it. He goes away feeling that an injustice has been done to him. He is hardly in a position to know what step to take next. He may consider consulting a solicitor, to see whether the case can be taken to a higher court, but, having gone to the expense of that consultation, having taken the necessary step to put his case before a higher authority in an attempt to get what he believes to be justice, at last the licensing authority declares a case which shows that it would be quite hopeless for him to pursue the matter further because he is entirely disqualified for some reason from holding this licence. Had that information been in the man's possession at the start, when the licence was first refused, he would have been in a much better position to know what his next step should be. I suggest that as this proposal could not possibly entail any great amount of work on the licensing authority, it is a simple act of justice which should appeal to all Members of the House.

9.15 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: This Amendment differs from the Amendment which was introduced in Committee but we still think it is not reasonable to insist in a Statute that the licensing authority should give his reasons for refusing a licence or for imposing conditions on the licence with which the applicant does not agree. If we were to put that onus on the licensing authority it would not materially help the applicant. It might in a sense make things more difficult for him because if my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Sir G. Rentoul) is right in what he said in Committee this might become a mere cut-and-dried form—

Sir G. RENTOUL: The hon. and gallant Member will bear in mind that there is a material difference between this Amendment and the Amendment which I moved in Committee. The Amendment which was moved in Committee required a statement in writing in every case. I agree that that procedure might become formal and perfunctory but surely it would not be so in the circumstances contemplated by this Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I think I made it clear that I recognised the difference between this Amendment and the Amendment moved in Committee. All the same I do not think it amounts to much in the interest of the applicant. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I think it is obvious that the licensing authority could not be expected on every occasion to give reasons. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I am ready to admit that the change which has been made in this proposal from that put forward in Committee has affected the position and perhaps it would be better in all the circumstances if hon. Members allowed me to consider this matter further in order to see if we cannot propose some change in the Bill which might meet the requirements of the Amendment. I cannot promise that that will be done, but I think the change to which I have referred does alter the position to some extent. Now that my hon. Friend the Minister is in his place I have no doubt that he will answer any further questions which hon. Members may wish to put on this point.

9.18 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: In order to give the Minister an opportunity of considering
this proposal to which I feel certain he will consent once he has considered it, I desire to say a few words upon it. The point is as to whether it should be compulsory on the licensing authority who refuses to grant a licence, to state, at the request of the applicant, the reasons for his decision. Clearly there is a multitude of reasons, any of which might operate and it seems almost a temptation to the licensing authority not to give any proper reasons for his decision if he is not called upon in this way to do so. The Minister knows the temptation that there is to persons like arbitrators not to state reasons for a decision, if they can avoid doing so, because they may be wrong. Surely this is a case in which an applicant is entitled to have specified to him, if he requires it, the reasons for a refusal and in view of the altered form in which the Amendment is now presented, compared with the form in which it was proposed in Committee, I am sure the hon. Gentleman will tell us that he is prepared to accept it.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. McKEAG: May I, in supporting the plea that reasons should be stated by the licensing authority, endeavour to clear up a misconception which was in the Minister's mind on Committee and which seems still to be in the mind of the Parliamentary Secretary. The Minister said in Committee:
it seems to me that the general practice of the commissioners is to give at the hearing their reasons for the rejection of the application. No doubt that will continue to be their practice in these cases."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee A.), 14th June, 1933, col. 236.]
I assure the Minister that the giving of reasons at the time of the hearing is the exception rather than the rule. In any case, if the Minister is right in saying that it is the general practice, why not indicate in this Bill that that is so? It is erroneous to suggest that the applicant would be prejudiced in any way if the Amendment were accepted. There is no reason why he should not be given not only the reasons at the time of the decision by the licensing authority but also the more detailed observations which would be forthcoming in the event of a decision to appeal after hearing the reasons for the refusal. The Amendment
might result in considerably reducing the number of appeals.

9.22 p.m

Sir B. PETO: Before the Minister replies, I ask him to consider in what respect this proposal could possibly benefit the applicant. It is obvious that even under the words now proposed, which differ from those proposed upstairs, it would be easy to give an ordinary general answer, as, for instance, that it was not in the public interest or something of that kind to grant the licence. Suppose the applicant got what he considered to be a conclusive answer, one which satisfied him and which specifically applied to his case, what is he going to do about it? I do not see in what respect it benefits him to impose this peculiar compulsory condition on a tribunal, to state reasons for its decision. I do not think it would be in the public interest to appoint a tribunal of this kind and then fetter it in the way suggested by the Amendment.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I apologise to the House for not having been present during the whole of this discussion but I think I have managed to pick up the threads of it. I think those who were present at the discussion upstairs realised my point of view. I was as anxious as anyone else to help applicants as much as possible, but I thought and I still think, that the applicant would gain little from any compulsion upon the authority to state the reasons for such a decision. Reasons could be given in a way which would satisfy this proposed provision but would actually leave the applicant very little wiser than he was before. We have just dealt with an Amendment which sets out the considerations which the licensing authority is to have in mind. It would be easy for him to give as his reason for refusing a licence that having regard to the interest of the public generally, including those persons who require as well as those who provide facilities, he was exercising his discretion in refusing the licence. That would satisfy the terms of the Amendment but it would leave the applicant no better off than he was before.
I objected to the Amendment as moved in Committee because it made this condition compulsory in all cases. I thought then as I still think that a compulsory
provision of that kind would have a tendency to cause the licensing authority, instead of giving the applicant all the information he wanted, merely to satisfy the minimum requirements of the law. In fact, such an Amendment would, if anything, have prejudiced the applicant rather than help him. I agree, however, that the position is rather altered by the words which have been added to this Amendment, because it will be possible for him to make these inquiries. Probably the habit would grow up of not asking for the reasons for the decisions in trivial cases or cases where, obviously, it would be quite an unnecessary burden on the licensing authorities. I think the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto)—although I rather agree with him as to the actual value that this provision will be to an applicant—went a little wrong in his suggestion that the applicant could get no value from having the reasons for the decision. As I take it, the object of letting the applicant know the reason is to enable him to decide whether he wants to appeal, and from that point of view it is clearly of benefit to him. In view of the alteration which has been made, although, frankly, I do not think this is going to be of much benefit to the applicant, I feel now that it will not be the positive disadvantage to him which I was afraid it would be in the earlier Amendment, and in these circumstances, I am prepared to accept the Amendment.

9.27 p.m.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As I was a supporter of this Amendment, may I thank the Minister for accepting it, and say that in accepting it I think he is probably doing better than he himself anticipates. When I read the proceedings in the Committee, I understood the Minister as having said that the present general practice of the commissioners under the 1930 Act, when announcing their decision, was to give their reasons for so doing. I cannot believe that the result will be that when ail obligation is laid on them to give their reasons to the person to whom a licence has been refused, and who wishes to have the reasons given, that then they will give some dry, formal answer that will really afford no information, whereas when that obligation has been laid on them under previous Act, they would have given their real reasons. Human nature may be strange, but if the reasons are at present given,
as the Minister said, I cannot think it will be a useless boon to the applicant who asks for the reasons, and I think he will be able to get what, on the Minister's authority, the commissioners are already prepared to give. Therefore, we are grateful to the Minister for giving us what, I think, will be of more benefit to the applicant than the Minister himself appreciated.

Amendment agreed to.

9.31 p.m.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I beg to move, in page 9, line 30, at the end, to insert the words:
An application for renewal 4 an existing licence shall not be refused except on the grounds on which a licence may be suspended or revoked.
This question was raised in Committee, and debated at some length, but I think that anybody who reads the discussions there will feel that it was very inconclusive, and that the reasons given for refusing to accept the Amendment were such that, on examination, they do not carry conviction. There were two reasons adduced by those who moved similar Amendment upstairs. The first was that to know the future and to have some reasonable certainty in regard to the future helps a good business rather than a business of a less reliable character. When you get some certainty as to the future, you get a good class of person, into a business, and give him an inducement to improve it, to introduce the best conditions and apply the best organisation, and, on the whole, to make the business the most effective, on the one hand, and the most creditable on the other
That is one point in favour of the Amendment which was so amply argued upstairs that I do not wish to reproduce the arguments tonight. The other point was that, of course, if an Amendment of this kind is granted, those who at present employ those vehicles for which they will obtain "C" licences, will very likely be willing to have the whole of their cartage undertaken by vehicles which would have to apply for "A" licences. I do not wish to elaborate that, for the case was fairly amply substantiated in Committee. I wish, however, to lay before the House the objection which the Minister made to the Amendment. He said:
I wish that the hon. Member for Mansfield in his interesting speech, had gone one
step further and told us what he was going to do on this Amendment. I rather gather that hon. Members opposite intend to support the Amendment because it would increase the chaos and confusion and thus lead, ultimately, to their desired solution."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee A), 25th May, 1933; col. 145.]
Is that a reasonable statement of the results to which this Amendment would lead? I put, perhaps, too briefly for those who have not read the Debate, the argument in favour of the Amendment, but Members should ask themselves how on earth this Amendment can lead to greater chaos and confusion? I wonder if the Minister himself, or anyone in the Ministry of Transport, has got real statistics showing the degree of congestion which is due to lorries at this moment, on what roads and under what conditions? As far as statistics are available, they show that far the greatest congestion on the road is due to passenger vehicles at certain times of the day, and especially at week-ends. Outside the great towns on the great main roads, if anyone were to stand and take note of the actual number of vehicles passing—as has been done on one or two occasions—he would probably find the amount of congestion caused by lorries is almost negligible as compared with that of other vehicles.
To say that the objection to this is that it would lead to a large amount of congestion, seems to me to be speaking without any data or facts to support such a contention. How on earth could a provision of this kind cause more confusion or congestion? If there is one thing which is likely, it is that there might be a transference of those vehicles which would in present conditions be run under "C" licences to the class of vehicles which will be run under "A" licences. As everybody knows, the vehicle run under a "C" licence will be used by the private owner in order to take his goods, and it will have to return empty, at any rate in 99 cases out of 100, if it is to continue to be used under a "C" licence and not a "B" licence, but if, as a result of getting a concession of this kind, he has the use of vehicles run under an "A" licence, it will reduce the number of vehicles, because you will have more vehicles running full to and fro, and fewer vehicles running empty half of their time.
I got up to deal particularly with one of the objections put forward by the Minister, but as to the case for saying that a renewal shall not be refused except on the grounds on which a licence may be suspended or revoked, I submit that it is just, and I do not think it can possibly controvert the objects of the Bill, assuming those objects to be desirable and on the hypothesis that they are. What is wanted under the Bill is to create a better organisation of road transport, to get owners to run their vehicles properly. If he could look forward to the future with confidence, the good owner would be encouraged. If he could have some security as regards the future, he would be much more likely to spend money and to be willing to perfect his organisation. I can see only good—I cannot see that there is any disadvantage—in giving him greater security of tenure.
Let anybody in the House envisage the occasion arising on which a person who now has a licence would be refused without having committed an offence for which it could be suspended or revoked. It is not easy to imagine such a case, and I can scarcely imagine that it would be the case unless there was such a development of other transit facilities by competition, or such a diminution of custom on the road, that the Traffic Commissioner could argue that the facilities then would be excessive and therefore would have to be reduced. That seems to be a contingency which, under normal circumstances, is so unlikely as to be able to be dismissed from mind. Then why not give this extra security? It can only be for good. It cannot increase, but can only relieve, congestion on the ordinary routes, and I submit for the Minister's consideration once again that, in the form in which we have brought the Amendment forward now, it is one which he might accept with advantage.

9.39 p.m.

Sir P. DAWSON: I desire to support the Amendment. I will not go into the arguments which my right hon. Friend has used, but I should like to add that any licensed haulier who is carrying on a goods business would not be encouraged to continue that business on a proper scale if, in a year or two years' time, he might be deprived of his vehicles. I am not speaking at the moment from the
point of view of the haulier, but from that of the public who use these vehicles. If that method of haulage is discouraged, it will reduce the methods of transport now available to the manufacturers, and I am sure that the last thing that the Minister would wish to do would be to do anything to discourage the best and most economic form of transport being at the disposal of the manufacturers and industrialists of this country. For that reason and for the reasons advanced by my right hon. Friend, I have pleasure in supporting the Amendment.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: My right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) made an interesting speech, based largely upon a quotation which he gave the House to understand was the view that I had expressed upon a similar Amendment in Committee. If he looked again at the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee, he would see that the sentence that he chose was what I had attributed to hon. Members opposite as their reason for supporting this Amendment, and therefore perhaps the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman built round that sentence lose some of their value. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] I am afraid that I was attributing motives to hon. Members opposite which were so unreasonable in their character that they would not be applicable, of course, to a Member of the Government.
I am afraid that I must return the same answer now as I did in Committee, namely, that I am not prepared to accept this Amendment. The effect of it would be, once a man had had an application granted, to give him a vested interest in that form of transport for the rest of his life. No matter what changes take place in these competitive times, no matter how many more efficient competitors try to increase their share of the transport work, however inefficiently or incompetently he may be running his own business, there he will remain with a vested interest in a number of vehicles. That is a position which seems to me to be destructive of that very private enterprise of which hon. Members who support the Amendment are standing in favour.
My right hon. Friend did not tell the House, when he was quoting from my speech in Committee, that I said then
that, although I was not prepared to accept any Amendment which conferred this vested right upon the holder of a licence, I was prepared to consider some words which would show to the licensing authority that it was to extend some kind of bias or preference in favour of an existing holder as compared with a new applicant; and hon. Members who were on the Committee will remember that at a subsequent stage I did move an Amendment to this very Clause 6 which makes it plain that one of the considerations which the licensing authority has to take into account when exercising its discretion is the extent to which the applicant is authorised to use goods vehicles under an existing licence of the same class. I thought then—and, as a matter of fact, I think all hon. Members supporting the Amendment accepted it—that that fulfilled the promise that I gave, and that it gives some definite preference to the existing licence-holder, without giving him an inalienable vested interest, which I could not for a moment admit and which, I think the House will agree, would not be in the best interests either of the transport users or of the transport providers of this country.

9.44 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I am disappointed with the Minister's speech. He referred to a vested interest, but if he wants to avoid the creation of a vested interest, he should drop the Bill, because the purpose of the Bill is to create semi-monopolies. It is going to be decided who is to be allowed to continue in business. We have only to apply the same principle to grocers, tobacconists, newsagents, and a few others, and private enterprise as we understand it comes to to end.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Hear, hear.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am not in the least surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite should cheer that observation. That is his purpose, and I am certain that on this issue he entirely sides with the Minister. But why should some commissioner decide whether or not a man is to be allowed to continue in business The Minister said that you may have thoroughly incompetent people. If you have incompetent people, nature provides its own remedy, and they go out of business, they go bankrupt, which is the natural way to elim-
inate them. Provided that anybody can get a licence freely, natural causes will eliminate the incompetent. Now we are to have a commission to decide who or who is not incompetent. Personally, I am unsympathetic with the general trend of this kind of legislation. It is a denial of those principles of freedom in which I have always believed. I find that a man is not to have a renewal of his licence except on the conditions under which a licence can be properly withdrawn from him, and that seems to me to conflict with all the things in which I have believed. I am very disappointed that the Minister is not prepared to accept the Amendment.

9.46 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. II. Williams) was, I always thought, a great protagonist of control. I seem to remember him talking about tariff commissions and the necessity for control—

Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. and learned Gentleman will not discover any speech of mine in which I have advocated control. If you establish a tariff, everybody is free to import or export as much as he likes.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The hon. Member knows that when you put on tariffs you control the different industries of the country, and that, I thought, was his object. The object of these commissioners is to put on control, and now the hon. Member is protesting because the Government want to control the transport industry of the country. We are delighted that the Minister has realised the necessity for control and the necessity for eventually doing away with private enterprise. We are only sorry that he is not doing it rather faster.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: The speech of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) ought to convince the Minister that there is something in this Amendment. I want particularly to put to the Minister that there is no provision for compensation in this Bill for any man who loses his business. That is a dangerous precedent to give to the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol. I can understand that he is pleased with this Amendment, because this kind of legislation
will enable him, if he is ever in the position to do so, to carry out the great principles which he so readily enunciates. I want to ask the Minister seriously if some protection cannot be given to a man who holds a licence. It is a dangerous thing if at the end of two years a man can lose his business, in which a capital of £30,000 or £40,000 may be involved. With the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman ringing in his ears, he ought to put in some Amendment to protect the interests of these men who run motor transport and to prevent the hon. and learned Gentleman having such a nice peg on which to hang his hat.

9.48 p.m.

Sir B. PETO: I do not find myself often in strong disagreement with the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), but his speech and every speech I have heard entirely ignores the main purpose of this Bill. It is that we should ultimately arrive at some method of co-ordination between various means of transport, and, in order to decide what licences are to be granted, we set up a licensing authority. The Minister has already inserted in the Bill an Amendment in Sub-section (2, a) to provide that the licensing authority must take into consideration
the extent to which the applicant is authorised to use goods vehicles under an existing licence of the same class.
There, I think, you have all the protection that anyone can claim to have if the licensing authority is to have any authority whatever as to how many goods vehicles are to be licensed, and whether it is in tine public interest that more should be licensed. Therefore, while the hon. Member for South Croydon talks about fettering the industry and so forth, he ignores the fact that the roads of the country are limited. We cannot allow everything to rip, and that is the reason that this Bill has been introduced. If we are to give an advantage to a previous holder of a licence that his case should be specially considered, it seems to me that the Minister has gone as far as he can.

9.50 p.m.

Captain STRICKLAND: I support the Amendment because I think that it strikes at the fundamental principle which should appeal to every Member on this side of the House. My hon. Friend
the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) said what was perfectly true. For the first time the authorities are going to be in a position to put a complete stop to a man's livelihood. I know that the Minister has gone far from his original intention by inserting in the Bill certain words instructing the licensing authority that, in granting or refusing an application for a licence, he should have regard to the conduct of the man who has had a licence in the past and the way in which be has run his business. That is all right so far as it goes, but I would like to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) what he would say if the Government were placed in a similar position with regard to the railways, and if they could suddenly come down and say, "There is plenty of accommodation on the roads at the present time for carrying goods between Birmingham and London, and therefore we propose to close down the railways from Birmingham to London without any compensation. This is a serious business. Road transport has come to stay.

Sir B. PETO: We must assume, if there is to be any analogy, that the roads belong to the road transport contractors.

Mr. SPEAKER: We are getting a long way from the Amendment.

Captain STRICKLAND: This is a fundamental principle, for it places in the hands of a single individual, subject to an appeal to a tribunal, the power to stop the business of a man who has been engaged in the transport industry for many years and has conducted his business efficiently and without breaking the law. You cannot run a road haulage business for nothing. Road haulage vehicles are extraordinarily expensive forms of [...]musement, and if you are going to sink, Say, £10,000 in motor haulage vehicles, and suddenly the business ceases through no fault of your own, but through what is deemed by an individual to be in the public interest, there should be some provision for compensation out of public funds. Suppose a man has been running his business for 18 months of the two years under an "A" licence, and one of his vehicles wants replacing: Is it reasonable to suppose that he will plunge into heavy additional expense to replace his fleet when, at the end of two years, he may have his industry taken away at
the will of one particular man? What sort of a test will be placed on the running of a man's business? If lie has broken the law he deserves all he gets, but what I want to know is what test has the Minister in mind which is to be brought into operation in deciding whether the man's livelihood is to be taken away?
This is a new departure. I know of no other business where this is to be applied. In the case of other tradesmen or manufacturers there would be a storm of protest if the State were to come in willy nilly with power to destroy their businesses. What is the test in deciding whether the man's livelihood is to be taken away? Is it a question of his efficiency? If it is a matter of efficiency then, as the hon. Member for South Croydon. (Mr. H. Williams) said, time itself will eliminate the inefficient man. One cannot run a business unless he is efficient, one has to keep up to the scratch, and the inefficient man will in any case disappear. What test have the Government in mind in deciding whether an efficient man who has kept within the limits of the law and run his business in a legitimate way is to have his business taken away, either in the public interest or for some other reason?

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 7.—(Special provisions as to certain applications.)

9.57 p.m.

Sir P. DAWSON: I beg to move, in page 10, line 38, at the end, to insert the words:
(4) If on an application for an "A" or a "B" licence the applicant, being a person using horse-drawn vehicles for a carrier's business on and after the first day of April, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-two, satisfies the licensing authority that the licence is required in order to enable the applicant to substitute motor vehicles for horse-drawn vehicles, the licensing authority shall, unless he is satisfied that having regard to the previous conduct of the applicant in the capacity of a carrier of goods he is not a fit person to receive a licence, grant to the applicant a licence to use a goods vehicle or goods vehicles of an aggregate load capacity not less than the horse-drawn vehicle for which it is proposed that the goods vehicle shall be substituted.
The object of this Amendment is to allow a haulier who has been using horses to replace them by motor vehicles and to be certain of getting licences for a sufficient number of motor vehicles to
enable him to carry on the amount of business he was doing with horse-drawn vehicles.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.

9.58 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The point raised by my hon. Friend was discussed in Committee and, after a certain amount of Debate, an Amendment somewhat similar to that which he is proposing was withdrawn. It is proposed, in the case of a man who, during a standard year was in process of changing from horse-drawn vehicles to motor vehicles, to place an obligation on the licensing authority to grant him a licence in respect of motor vehicles of an aggregate load capacity not less than that of the horse-drawn vehicles which he has been using. I can assure my hon. Friend that a licensing authority will certainly take into account any claim that can be substantiated by such an operator in process of changing over from horse-drawn vehicles to motor vehicles, but we cannot admit that it is right to impose a definite requirement on the licensing authority such as is suggested in the Amendment. We think it would be quite unworkable if for no other reason than the difference that there is in loading capacity as between motor vehicles and horse-drawn vehicles. It is for that reason that we cannot accept the Amendment.

Sir P. DAWSON: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 8.—(Conditions of licences.)

10 p.m.

Mr. PARKINSON: I beg to move, in page 11, line 19, to leave out the words "A licence and of every B."
If this Amendment is agreed to Sub-section (2) will then read:
It shall be a condition of every licence that the provisions of section ninety-three of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, as amended and applied by this part of this Act, are complied with in relation to the persons to whom that section is so applied.
We discussed this matter rather fully in Committee and the Minister promised to give it further consideration before the Report stage to see whether he could settle the matter satisfactorily to us. He has courteously written me a letter to say that he has given it further consideration,
but is sorry that he cannot find grounds for accepting the Amendment. The Amendment is comprehensive, because we feel that the "C" licences ought to be brought within the same conditions as apply to "A" and "B" licences. The Minister said it was his intention to meet the parties to discuss the difficulties that were said to surround the proposal to include "C" licences. According to the letter he has sent to me, he has met the employers, but he does not say anything as to whether he has met any of the organisations representing road transport workers, though they ought to be given the same consideration as is shown to the employers' organisations. If, as appears, they have been left out of court the Minister has based his conclusions upon what has been stated to him by the employers' organisations. The report of the Salter Conference said:
We consider that hauliers and similar users should be subject to regulations enforced through the grant of licences as regards fair wages and conditions of service and the maintenance of their vehicles in a state of fitness.
We contend that it is impossible to comply with that recommendation if we exclude "C" licences from this obligation. There is the further fact that if the Minister refuses to include the "C" licences he is going to exclude approximately 75 per cent. of the transport industry. The prospect of cheap labour will induce industrialists to cease placing contracts with proper haulage contractors and themselves undertake haulage. They will provide their own fleets of vehicles, and there will be an inducement to them not to recognise the real rate of wages. It will be an opportunity for them, by a side wind or a back door, to get out of a responsibility which they really ought to undertake.
Another point that arises is that part-time drivers may be employed. In Committee a great deal was said about shop assistants and agricultural workers who are called upon to deliver goods by motor vehicle, but I did not pay very much attention to that argument, because it brings in a class of man who is a part-time driver and is not in a sense responsible either for ogee job or the other. I understand that certain large firms do employ men to drive for part-time only, and it is really a public danger. A man may work in a factory or
a mill or on a farm until night and, after having done there a full day's work, may then be called upon to run some produce somewhere or to take out some orders which had been obtained during the day. In that way men are called upon to do more than a standard day. The chief objection raised to the inclusion of "C" licences is that there is not in existence better machinery for maintaining the wages and the conditions of the men employed. In view of the present position there will be no opportunity, because really the Minister has offered to these people a kind of agreement on which, I suppose, he will make a full statement later.

Mr. STANLEY: What agreement, may I ask?

Mr. PARKINSON: I understood that the Minister stated that he had agreed with, or had consulted employers, and that they had agreed to the Amendment. He must have made some agreement with the people with whom he has been in negotiation or consultation. Whether there has been any agreement arranged or not, and whether he has expressed himself to the employers' organisations which he has been meeting, does not in any way endanger their organisation or the agreements which have been arrived at to regulate trade union conditions. There are a large number of organisations which I have here who have their own agreements which will in no way be broken by the acceptance of this Amendment. They include many of the organisations which were mentioned upstairs—cooperative societies, flour and oil distributors and retailers, who have agreements of their own. They will come along even if the "C" licence were accepted in the same way because of the agreements which have been made between employers and employed in the application of the "C" licences.
There are many other things which have to be taken into consideration. There is the point as to how large the business is to be, stow that these people have "C" licences. I have in mind a colliery company engaged in selling its own produce by land sale. They go out to various districts in the county of Lancashire. I do not know how many vehicles they have, but they are very heavy and large. The same thing may apply to a brick or tiles works, where
commodities are very heavy or very large. It is rather hard, in my opinion, that the whole of the employés employed by the various companies must not he brought under the regulation of Section 93 of the Road Traffic Act. The Minister said in his Second Reading speech that he would like to have the wage Clause applied to everyone in the transport industry, if it were practicable. We maintain that it is practicable. We do not agree that the leaving out of the "C" licences will in any way influence matters. It is going to lead to a kind of long-drawn-out struggle which will have to be ended some day as to who shall have the "C" licences and who the others. It would be much better, in our opinion, if an attempt were made to bring them altogether and to get the whole of these licences regulated, by the three sorts of licences being under one authority. The people who are included under the three licences should be governed by the same conditions of labour in the industry, and by the full application of Clause 93 of the Road Traffic Act.
For this and many other reasons, which have been put by my hon. Friends, I seriously ask the Minister to give the greatest possible consideration to the point. If he has taken advice from one organisation, it is only reasonable and fair to ask him to take advice from the Transport Workers' Organisation, because they represent more people than the employers' organisations which the Minister has already consulted. To be honest and fair with each other, the Minister ought to give the same consideration to one side as to the other, with a view to arriving at a balanced opinion before he definitely decides upon the action that he is going to take.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I apologise to the House for intervening on this Amendment at an early stage, but I thought that it would probably be for the convenience of the House, in view of the history of this proposal, that I should immediately say what has happened since the Committee stage. My hon. and learned Friend will, of course, reply later in the Debate, to points which are raised subsequent to my speech. When this Bill was being considered on Second Reading, I said that, from theoretical considerations, I should have liked to have seen the "C" licence holders made subject
to this fair wage provision, and that what had made me exclude them was the impracticability of making them subject to those conditions. The two grounds on which I said that it was impracticable was because of the small man where you had a double employment, and because, in view of all the industrial agreements for a particular industry, you might have some disturbance by this occupational treatment. It was clear, when the subject was discussed in Committee, that the Committee as a whole sympathised with my view, that is to say, they wanted to see this provision extended to the "C" licence holders, if it were in any way possible. I am convinced that they wanted me, between then and the Report stage, to explore the possibilities of so extending this condition and, if I was convinced that the difficulties were not insuperable or the impracticability-not so great as I anticipated, that I should submit such an Amendment to the House. I promised in consequence of that that between then and the Report stage I would consult these organisations, and see what I could do to remove the difficulties.
The hon. Member is not quite fair when he makes the accusation against me in regard to not meeting the unions, but I take it that accusation does not emanate from him. I tried to make it perfectly plain who were the people that I was going to see, and it was open to the hon. Member, at that time or at any time subsequently, to suggest to me that I should see the unions as well. I should certainly have done so. The hon. Gentleman cannot pretend, as a consequence of what I said in Committee, that I considered only the employers' point of view; I was accepting the trade union point of view as being correctly put forward by him. I therefore do not think that he is quite fair, but, as I say, I do not think that it was really his attack.

Mr. T. SMITH: Is that the only reason why the unions were not consulted?

Mr. STANLEY: I did not consult them because I was accepting the hon. Member as speaking for them, that their views were as represented by him, and that they wished to see this thing done.

Mr. PARKINSON: I am not making any charge against the Minister on his
statement. I think that the difficulties presented by the employers ought to have been submitted to the representatives of the workers. I never said anything upstairs about the unions because I took it, for granted that the unions' point of view was accepted. I think that if there were difficulties between the employers' organisations and the Minister, it would have been only reasonable and fair to have a joint consultation, with the two bodies represented.

Mr. STANLEY: I am perfectly willing at any time to see any representatives of any trade union that the hon. Gentleman thinks would like to see me, or that it would be profitable for me to see. It would have been open at any time for any of these unions to ask to see me, but, as far as I am aware, none has done so.
Let me now turn to the history of what has occurred since the Committee stage. As the result of the promise that I gave, I first received a deputation from organisations included in the National Federation of Employers' Organisations. The industries there represented are mostly the heavy industries, such as are represented by the Engineering Federation, the Gas Employers' Federation, the Mining Association, the Shipbuilding Employers' Federation, the Wool Textile Employers' Federation, and the Federation of Iron and Steel Manufacturers. In the second place, I saw a deputation from the National Conference of Road Transport Organisations, which is roughly speaking representative of the retail distributors. Whatever my hon. Friend may say this evening, it was common ground in the Committee that the small man at any rate would have to be excluded. My hon. Friend was talking about the shop-man who had to leave the counter and get on a lorry, and said that of course he did not expect him to be included; and the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall)—

Mr. PARKINSON: That is not quite fair. I said that there had been great talk in the Committee about a man being called from behind the counter or from the farm to take out orders, but I made no comment on it except to say that which had been said in Committee.

Mr. STANLEY: The hon. Gentleman certainly gave me, and I think the House,
to understand that that was an argument which he dismissed, but I was going to point out to the House that the hon. Member for Aberdare agreed to an Amendment which was intended to exclude the small man, and the reason he gave was that there would have been an interchange of employment, such as when a person who might be serving in the shop was called upon to deliver goods during a portion of his time; and it is clear that the hon. Member, speaking for the Labour party, felt that this question of double employment was a very difficult one, and, therefore, he was prepared to support an Amendment to exclude all holders of licences in respect of less than three vehicles, because he thought that by eliminating the small man in that way he would to a large extent get rid of the difficulty. I made that special point because I, too, was under the impression that that Amendment which the hon. Member was prepared to accept, would to a large extent have done away with the very real difficulty, which we all saw, of the double employment of the man who spent perhaps an hour or two a day on a lorry, and the rest of his time on a different job, and the difficulty of knowing, in a case like that, what was the rate of wages applicable to his real employment. I am sure hon. Members will agree that one essential in a condition of this kind is certainty. If you are to prosecute a man for breaking it, and possibly take away his licence for breaking it, you must be sure that he knows o what the condition really means, and that, in breaking it, he is breaking it knowingly. Therefore, the question of double employment remains in the eyes of all of us a question of great importance.
I found, however, when I came to discuss the matter with these heavy industries, that this question of double employment was by no means confined to the small man, and that an Amendment to exclude the holder of a licence for less than three vehicles would not by any means meet the case. I found that in a large number of these heavy industries the wholly employed transport worker was the exception rather than the rule, and that the vast majority of them were employed only for part of their time in driving lorries, the rest of their time having to be filled in in various ways. It was explained to me that the spare
time occupation of the driver depended on his capacity, and his remuneration depended on the way in which his spare time off the lorry was spent—that the more skilful man, who in his spare time was put on to a more skilful job, would receive a greater remuneration than the man who, in his spare time off the lorry, was put on to only the simplest jobs, and I think I am right in saying that, in a great many of these industries, the organisation between employers and employed for the settling of these wage questions is on such a detailed basis that it almost comes down to settling the individual wage of the individual man in accordance with the particular job that he does in his spare time, and the particular skill that he brings to bear upon it.
The case was brought to my notice where a man who drove a lorry for a gas company in some cases would be able to fit the gas fittings and in other cases would not and, therefore, the remuneration would be different. In some cases the lorry driver in his spare time could only be put on to sweeping floors, and in others he would be able not only to drive the lorry but also to do some repair work to it. It became quite plain to me that as far as these heavy industries were concerned, although I thought it might be possible to reach agreement, it would only be at the expense practically of taking them out of the "C" class position. The utmost that one could have done with the heavy industries would be to propose some proviso which would have excluded from this fair wage provision any industry in which an agreement subsisted between the worker and the employer where the licence holder was a party to the agreement. It might have been possible, had no other difficulty presented itself, to deal with the case of the heavy industries in that way, but the practical effect of that would be to withdraw them from the purview of the "C" licence. But I was quite certain that, short of that, it would have been impossible for the Industrial Court to be called upon, as it would be, to decide, not on cases covering whole classes of individuals but really on a, fair wage applicable to one man in particular circumstances which very likely was applicable to hardly anyone else in the same industry.
So much for the heavy industries at one end of the scale. At the other end of the scale, by common agreement, we have decided to omit the small man. The limit was suggested of three vehicles. There remains, therefore, the middle lot, and the middle lot were represented largely by this National Conference of Road Transport organisations, who are chiefly the retail distributors. I found immediately there certain practical difficulties all on the line of this double employment. In the first place, I found that this three vehicles provision would not have suited the case of the big multiple store. A case was quoted to me of a store in Liverpool with something like 140 individual shops. Each shop, as far as transport was concerned, was organised on a separate basis. Each had its own little fleet of transport. It had its lorry, its delivery tricycle, and it may have had some form of cart. All those vehicles would have to be included in the licence of the company that controlled the 140 shops but not one of the shops, although they were organised on a small mall basis, would have got the benefit of this three vehicle proviso, and yet in every one they only had probably one motor vehicle and the man who drove it spent practically the whole of his time on some other job. In fact, it was exactly the case my hon. Friend pointed to as suitable for exclusion from the Bill. So immediately I should have to make some provision for arranging, if it vas possible, this three vehicle limit as regards the unit, and not necessarily the aggregate in the possession of the licence holder.
Then I found, pursuing my inquiries with regard to these distributors, that this practice of part-time employment, at any rate as far as the wholesaler was concerned, was almost universal. Hon. Members will appreciate that the use which the wholesalers—and, indeed, I find many distributors—have for their motor vehicles is limited to a short period in the morning when they collect their goods from the market. I was informed that in many cities the cost of house-to-house retail distribution by motor vehicle is too expensive, and that it is almost entirely done by tricycle or bicycle, or whatever it may be, and that the use of lorries is confined to picking up the produce wholesale at the market, and delivering it to the shops—a process which
perhaps takes two or three hours every morning. For the rest of the time, the men who drive the lorries are employed on other jobs of an entirely different character and at different rates of pay.
For instance, the representative of the butchers—I am not sure whether he was not the gentleman who is the namesake of the hon. Member for Aberdare, and, not only his namesake, hut, I understand, the political ally of the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), who was, I think perhaps, if anything, more opposed to the acceptance of this principle than any of the good Conservatives who visited me on that occasion—I found from the man who was speaking from knowledge of the butchers that of the lorry drivers who spent two hours in the morning picking up meat in the market and distributing it to the shops, some spent the rest of the day as slaughtermen, and were paid accordingly, and others were in the warehouses or doing odd jobs, and were paid a lower salary. There was this complete division of a short time as a lorry driver and most of the day as something else. Here, again, the three-vehicle limit, which in Committee we thought had more or less solved the problem, I found to be inadequate, because the double employment did not depend at all on the size of the fleet, and that the part time of the vehicles was dictated by the machinery of the trade, and that a man with 20 vehicles, just as a man with three, would always employ his drivers on something else as well as on the pure work of transport, and something would have to be done to provide for them.
Faced with the exceptions which would have to be made to this provision before it could be made workable, I came to the conclusion that no practical result could be expected from a Clause of this character. It was possible, as, I think, my hon. Friend suggested, that you should confine this to people wholly employed as lorry drivers. Of course, the House will see at once that that provision would be useless as a safeguard. It would merely be necessary for a man to take a driver off a lorry for an hour a day, and put him on to something else to evade the provision. The point I really had to decide was whether, partly for propaganda purposes, to show what the feeling of the House was, because we might sweep a few into our net, it
was worth while asking the House to face an Amendment, which, as far as practical reality was concerned, I was certain could not be enforced, and, with the proviso it would be necessary to make, would have been useless. I came definitely to the conclusion that, not only was there no good in the House accepting such an Amendment, but that there was definite harm. The most dangerous thing from the point of view of the other provisions of the Bill, which we can enforce, and which will be enforced, is that you should add a provision which is notoriously evaded.
I am certain that, with all the difficulties, a man would be able to put up such a good case for uncertainty and for comparison with some other person who was doing something else, that I cannot imagine it would have been possible successfully to prosecute him for a breach. The danger was that once he had learned that that condition could be evaded and that he could drive a coach and four through a section of an Act of Parliament, he would be tempted to try and evade another section and see if he could drive a coach and four through that. Nothing is more fatal to a whole set of conditions such as we have in this Bill than that one should be capable of wholesale evasion. It is for that reason that I warn the House that the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend, however desirable it may be in theory, is, I am afraid, wholly impracticable in operation. I fear the only result of our acceptance of it would be to encourage licence holders under this scheme in the belief that the conditions of the licence which we mean to see enforced could in fact be broken with impunity.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. G. HALL: Needless to say we are very disappointed with the statement made by the Minister. I agree with him that he did express his sympathy with the object of the Amendment on the Second Reading of the Bill and in the Committee stage. We attempted to meet him regarding the small man and, as he rightly said, we were prepared to agree to art Amendment which excluded the small man with three or four vehicles, because we felt that in dealing with him there was a real hardship. But I want the House to realise what it means in excluding I he other licence holders from the Fair Wages Clause. It is true to say
that the "A" and "B" licence holders will have to comply with Section 93 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, but the "A" and "B" licence holders only represent 20 to 25 per cent. of the operators under this Act. 75 per cent. of the operators coming under this Act will have "C" licences. As far as we are concerned, while it is true to say that a very small proportion of them will be small men whom we thought could be dealt with in the way we suggested, we are very apprehensive about the large employers represented by the first group to whom the Minister referred.
We cannot see that it is impracticable for these people to agree to the conditions of this Amendment. What is there in the Fair Wages Clause which the steel makers, the iron producers and employers in the heavy industries could object to. There are agreements in existence which cover a large number of the industries to which the hon. Member has referred. Take flour milling. You have flour millers working large fleets of vehicles and they will obtain "C" licences. There is in existence agreements which cover not only the men who work in the industry itself but also drivers of motor vehicles which convey the grain from the dockside to the mill and the flour from the mill to the station. The same thing applies to furniture making, oil distribution, the building trades, brewing, and coal distribution, wholesale and retail, dyers, newspapers, printing trades, iron and steel trades, engineering, textiles, electricity, gas and water undertakings and building trades. The London retail stores have also an agreement. We can see no difficulty regarding the large operator. The difficulty we see is that it will have a serious effect on the holders of "A" and "B" licences, because if the holder of a "C" licence can work a vehicle cheaper as a result of not paying wages which he would have to pay under a fair wage clause the holders of "C" licences might be a real menace to holders of "A" and "B" licences.
Why is the Minister of Transport refusing to apply to the holders of "C" licences what the House of Commons 50 years ago agreed should be inserted in every Government contract? I cannot see why the House should refuse to accept this reasonable Amendment. In the Committee stave hon. Members opposite
supported our contention, particularly the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) and the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley), and with two exceptions every Member who spoke supported our Amendment. I believe if we had forced the Amendment to a division that we should have received the support of most hon. Members who spoke on it. I hope there is yet time for the Minister of Transport to reconsider the matter, because unless "C" licences are included then, as far as we are concerned, one of the most useful purposes of this Bill will be destroyed. I ask the Minister not to close his mind on this matter. Of the 400,000 vehicles which will be brought under the Bill about 300,000 will operate under "C" licences and therefore hon. Members will realise why we are emphasising the importance of the proposal. What is a fair wage clause? It is the minimum wage which can be paid to any person employed in a given occupation. Any employer who pays more than the amount he is forced to pay will not suffer. The good employer is not interfered with. It is the bad employer who is the real menace not only to the workmen but to the industry itself; and it is the bad employer who the Minister is supporting by his attitude, whereas he should endeavour to assist the good employer.
Let me deal with an inconsistency in the attitude of the Minister of Transport. He has agreed that Section 19 of the 1930 Act regarding hours shall apply to all holders of licences, whether it is an "A" a "B," or a "C" licence. All will have to conform to this Bill when it becomes an Act. Safety conditions, hours of employment—all these things will apply in the same way to "A," "B" and "C" licences, but when it comes to the question of the fair wages clause, which is one of the most important things, the Minister says that it is impracticable, and that he could not get the employers to agree. I hardly expected him to get the employers to agree when we discussed the matter in Committee. The difficulty is that a large section of the employers will have to be forced. The fact that trade boards operate is in itself evidence that there are numbers of employers who can be forced only by way of Act of Parliament to pay the absolute minimum wage to their employés.
I again appeal to the Minister to reconsider this matter. If he will take his courage in his hands and accept the Amendment, the difficulties which he has mentioned this evening will very likely be overcome. What difficulty is there for a large employer, with 20 of 30 vehicles, to employ efficient drivers for conveying his goods? The Minister mentioned that payment is made for some of these drivers, and that, while they may be unskilled, they could not be depended on for continuous driving. Those drivers are a real menace to public safety. The Minister referred to butchers, but that difficulty could be easily overcome. I know of no large employer who could not so organise the distributive side of his business that, if he has 20 or 30 or 40 vehicles, he could employ whole-time men in dealing with distribution.
As far as retailers are concerned, the Minister referred to Liverpool, where there are 140 retail stores. I can refer him to the co-operative societies, which have nearly 1,000 vehicles controlled by the English and Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Societies. There are 120 retail societies, all having a number of branches, and they, instead of taking any exception to Section 93 of the 1930 Road Traffic Act, rather welcome it. If a co-operative society can so organise its business as to employ drivers whole-time and bring them under this Bill, and give them conditions which are an improvement on what is asked for in this Amendment, there cannot be any difficulty at all in regard to the employers whom the Minister has mentioned.

10.44 p.m.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: I think hon. Gentlemen are perfectly right in pressing this matter in the way that they are doing. I can appreciate the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Minister against the suggestions made, but if his arguments in resisting the Amendment mean anything at all they mean that it is perfectly stupid to apply this provision to any licence holder at all. In the first place the holder of a "B" licence is the same kind of man as the holder of a "C" licence, and every kind of argument advanced against the Amendment in the case of a "C" licence is equally applicable to the "B" man and to the "A" man. Reference has been made to exempting the small man. But there
are small men holding "A" licences just as there are small men holding "B" licences and if, under the provisions of the Bill, Section 93 of the Act of 1930 as amended is to apply to some 25 per cent. of the vehicles on the road, it is obviously necessary to apply it to the remaining 75 per cent. It may be that the holders of "C" licences do not keep men driving vehicles all day long. Nor do the holders of "B" licences. Even among the "A" licence holders there will be cases in which a man may be driving part of the day, and acting as a warehouse-porter, a garage cleaner, or a mechanic during other parts of the day.
The question of double employment or "split jobs" will arise in all categories. Whether that is good or bad I am not arguing at the moment. I am only pointing out that every argument advanced by the Minister against applying this provision to the "C" licence-holder, is equally strong against its application to the "A" or "B" licence holder. I am not arguing that it should be dropped out altogether on that account. What I say is that it is highly inconsistent to put this provision into the Bill for anybody unless it is to apply to everybody. I hope that the Minister will review the difficulties which he has mentioned. I am not suggesting that they are not formidable difficulties, but on grounds of common equity it is only reasonable that if the man who holds an "A" licence, or a "B" licence is to be liable to this kind of thing, his competitor who holds a "C" licence should equally be liable. The latter category should riot be left out of the provision. If the Bill goes forward without this Amendment the Minister is going to create an absurd anomaly which will give rise to no end of trouble and will to a large extent frustrate the objects of this part of the Bill.

10.48 p.m.

Mr. MANDER: I join in the appeal which has been made to the Minister to go into this matter again, to see whether it is not possible to devise a scheme for bringing all sections of transport inside the provisions of the Fair Wages Clause. A most difficult and indefensible situation will be created if a large section of transport people are paying certain wages and others are not up to that standard, although the working conditions in both cases are very much the same. I appreciate
the difficulty of applying the provision in certain cases. But there will be many instances among the "C" licence holders where men will be employed full-time as drivers and it is only a question of finding the appropriate machinery for including them within the scheme and seeing that they are paid the correct rate of wages There will be certain other cases, much more difficult to deal with, in which a man only works part time as a lorry driver, and is engaged in other kinds of work at other times. I should have thought it would be possible to lay down a law that in such a case a man should be paid the standard rate for the district. That would, necessarily, be somewhat lower than the full driver's rate but there ought to be some standard. Otherwise, it will be left to a certain type of employer, of whom, unfortunately, there are too many, to pay a rate which will be a long way below what any one could regard as a standard rate.
I am afraid that the result of the Minister's action, if he does not reconsider his decision, will be that in a large area of the country, men in this industry will be paid wages Which by no stretch of imagination can be regarded as otherwise than unfair and unreasonable. It will be a great pity if the machinery of the Bill cannot be used for the purpose of raising the standard. There is a good deal in the suggestion of the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) that employers could do a great deal by reorganising their services. It is very easy for an employer to say that he has taken a certain line for a very long time, and that he wants to continue that line, and it is only when superior force and the influence of the State come in that he is forced to reorganise and change his system for the benefit of the men. It is no excuse to say, that because things are difficult to work out, you are therefore to condemn a very large number of people to work below a standard rate, whether it is a transport rate or a lower rate for the ordinary workers who come between the unskilled and the transport rate. I do appeal to my hon. Friend to go into, this matter again, and see whether he cannot devise some scheme which will do a great deal to equalise the rates through a very large area of industry,
and which will improve the prospects of a large number of transport workers.

10.51 p.m.

Sir B. PETO: Before going into the Division Lobby on either side, the House should have an opportunity of a word or two of explanation. I am not convinced by the speech of the Minister that there are insuperable difficulties in the way of applying the fair wages clause. We must assume that the Salter Conference went into this. I do not say they went into it as closely as the Minister has, but they recommended that on this question all licence holders should be subjected to the fair wages clause, and I think that was a reasonable recommendation. It is wholly unreasonable to provide that 25 per cent., the "A" and "B" licence holders, should be bound to pay under the fair wages clause, and that 75 per cent. of the road haulage should be under no such obligation. It imposes a definite disability on the "A" licence holders, who are in many cases in direct competition with the "C" licence holders.
To what does the disability amount? The Section of the Act merely provides that the wages paid by the holder of any road service licence to persons employed by him in connection with the operation of public service vehicles and the conditions of employment shall not be less favourable to them than the wages which would have been payable, and the conditions which would have to be observed under a contract which complied with the requirements of any Resolution of the House of Commons for the time being enforced and applicable to contracts with Government Departments. We are dealing with the most exacting and exhausting form of service that is performed by any class of the community, namely, the driving of heavy road vehicles, and I ask, why should anyone who is engaged in that occupation not receive a wage which is the minimum wage provided at the time by the House of Commons in the case of contracts for the public service?
After all, this is a matter of competitive haulage, and I ask the House to consider for a moment what are the wages paid to the locomotive driver. I think everyone would agree that the wages which would he applicable under Section 93 of the Act would not come up to the wages of the
Locomotive driver. The driver of a haulage vehicle, whether an "A," a "B," or a "C" licence, has a far more arduous job to perform, and I see no reason why, if it is right to provide for a minimum wage Clause for "A" and "B" licensees, it should not also apply, as recommended by the Salter Conference, to the "C" licensees. The Minister said that he had seen the employers of various big industries, and they had put up to him a number of most ingenious objections, which seemed to make it quite impossible that they should comply with the fair wages Clause. I am aware that there would be a disinclination on the part of any body of employers to have any restrictions as to wages imposed upon them if they could possibly avoid it. That is common ground, and it is a matter of common sense. People do not like restrictions, and in saying that, I am speaking as an ex-employer myself; but I do not think these arguments are so valid as the Minister thinks.
I rather think that in this matter we are dealing with a bigger question than he thinks, and that he has a little lost sight of the wood by seeing too much of the trees. He has been closely concerned with these small objections that are put up, and I think there is very great force in what the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) said in favour of the Amendment, that there is very little which can be said against the general and universal application of the fair wages clause. Otherwise, let us not have it applied at all. Do not let us have the miserable compromise of applying it to the 25 per cent. of road transport, and nobody else. I have always understood that it is rather a question in these days of increasing and more widely distributing purchasing power, to get us out of our present troubles. This is a matter in the main of internal transport and of the most exhausting occupation that there is, and I do not see why Members on this side, and why, above all, the Minister—who, I should have thought, was a much more advanced Tory democrat than I could ever claim to be—should be objecting to and I should he supporting this Amendment.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: The Minister stated that he had only listened to one side and had not called in the trade unions, but I
think the trade unions had a right to be consulted, and that, this question is altogether too important to be taken at the last moment and for a division to be run through because of certain arrangements. When it is a question of the fair wages clause for the drivers of vehicles, I think all traffic should be included, but under the Bill Class "C" drivers are to be excluded. It is no use for the Minister to argue that certain small people would not be able to carry this out. If he had gone into the matter thoroughly and could hold out some hope that some time later this could be done, one could agree with him, but he has not done that, and therefore we cannot allow this Clause to pass unless the Amendment is included in it, and unless we can get struck out of the Clause the limitation to "A" and "B" licensees and put all three on one footing. Therefore, I ask the Minister to give it the fullest consideration and to see if something cannot be done. When this matter was before us on a previous occasion it was evidently intended that a fair wages clause should be in.

It being Eleven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — COAL INDUSTRY (OVERTIME, BANFURLONG).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson].

11.4 p.m.

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: I desire to raise a question which is of vital importance to the mining industry, namely, the question of overtime. The Secretary for Mines told us yesterday that the case under consideration could not be dealt with effectively by question and answer. For that reason, I thought that I would give him the opportunity to-night to give his reasons for not taking legal proceedings in a case from my own division. The case concerns the Mains
Colliery, Banfurlong, near Wigan, and is that of a collier and drawer who worked the day shift and the night shift of the same day. The colliery was not working the following day. On Friday of the same week this collier and drawer worked the same day shift again and also the night shift. When this was discovered it was reported to the divisional inspector, who promised immediate investigation. The result of that investigation is, as the Secretary for Mines informed us, to the astonishment of every mining Member, that he has decided against a prosecution in this case. We of the miners never dreamed that such a case was provided for in the Coal Mines Regulation Act, that it was permissible by law for a man to work two separate shifts in 24 hours. If that is the case, it seems to us that any number of men at any colliery can do the same thing, unless the Secretary for Mines thinks there were special circumstances in this case such as are provided for in that Section of the Act which allows emergency work to be done as overtime. Our information is that in this case the work is not covered by that Section of the Act. In this book which I have in my hand, which I rather think is the Bible of the Secretary for Mines during the week, provision is made for certain types of work to be done as overtime in these words:
Nor shall any contravention of the foregoing provisions be deemed to take place in the case of any workman who is below ground for the purpose of rendering assistance in the event of accident,"—
That does not apply in this case—
or for meeting any danger or apprehended danger,"—
That does not apply in this case—
or for dealing with any emergency or work uncompleted through unforeseen circumstances,"—
Neither does that apply to this case—
which requires to be dealt with without interruption in order to avoid serious interference with ordinary work in the mine or in any district of the mine, or in the case of stallmen when engaged in the process of taking down top coal"—
and so on. My contention is that there is nothing in that Regulation which applies to this particular case. If the case does not come under the emergency provisions there can be no justification for not taking proceedings. That is the sole question—does it or does it not come under emergency work? I know a
similar case, and so does the Minister, which was taken to court in which a decision was given against the colliery company. I will quote the case briefly. It was the case of Archibald v. Thorneycroft, taken in 1913. It was held that the Section refers to abnormal and exceptionally serious occurrences and not to
the danger which will always be present in a pit if it is not looked after.
The exception is only intended for the case of men who if they left off work at the end of an eight-hour shift
would leave behind them a condition of things tending to exceptional danger.
Here is the part to which I wish to call special attention:
It is not permissible for a repairing shift to work from 10 p.m. on Sunday to 6 a.m. on Monday and again from 3 to 11 p.m. on Monday, even though more falls might have to be dealt with on the Sunday night than on other nights; the circumstances in such a case would not be abnormal.
There is a case almost exactly similar, only here we are dealing with the day shift and the night shift as against the night shift and the afternoon shift. In that case the court held there was a breach of the Regulations. We are unable to understand why the Secretary for Mines is not prepared to take a chance in court on this case, though we know that he would have to feel fairly sure, in his mind, of winning, because for the Department to take a case to court and lose is not a very wise thing to do. We want to know in what this case differs from the case that I have quoted. What is there in this case that makes it legal? We must remember that to condone this case of overtime is to encourage this type of overtime in this country. I do not think that that can be the Minister's intention.
This colliery is in a part of my constituency, and there has been more comment on this case of overtime than on any case which I have known. The Lancashire and Cheshire Miners' Federation have discussed this case from A to Z and the Minister's refusal to take legal proceedings against this colliery company has put him in this position, in the sight of the miners of Lancashire, hat he is not doing what fie ought to do. He knows from the reports which he has had—many of them, I agree, not authenticated
—that overtime is rampant. The difficulty is to get a case, because the man who works overtime is generally very math afraid of giving information to his trade union. He is afraid that the result would be, as has been in many cases, victimisation. It is difficult to bring a genuine case to the Minister's attention. His colleague, the Minister of Transport, told us that we, on this side, were not prepared to bring cases to the notice of various Ministers, but here we have brought one, and we fail to understand the reason why the Minister has not taken action. Even if he has satisfied himself that there is no ground on which to prosecute in this case, will he tell us in what way the law safeguards such a case? If the law allows working of this kind, it only shows that the law needs drastically amending.
My final words are that, whatever the law does, I want the Minister to let it be known throughout the coalfields that he is strongly opposed to the working of overtime in the coal mines of this country. His refusal to take proceedings is resented by the miners of Lancashire, and the resentment is still more intense among the unemployed miners that those in work should be allowed to work two shifts in the 24 hours, and that the Minister tells us that this is legal.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I would like to emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend. The Secretary for Mines has from time to time told us that if we have any definite cases we must let him know about them, and that he was prepared to use his powers to prevent illegal overtime. We have constantly told our miners' agents to let us know of all cases. In the coalfields, illegal overtime is prevalent, and we are being constantly told that we are doing nothing to carry out the law. We have asked our people to watch and let us know what is happening, and we would get the Secretary for Mines to take action and try to put in order what we understood was contrary to the Coal Mines Regulations Act, 1909 We have brought forward this case, which, to my mind, is quite clear and definite, where a man has completed a shift and left the colliery, and the statutory limitation of time has not been allowed to intervene before that man is again back at work.
In this case and other similar cases, there can be no question of emergency, because emergency is something unforeseen, something that they did not know could or would happen, and therefore before the shift had been completed these men had been told to stop on, because there had been a fall. The airways were blocked, or the adit had been stopped. In this case the employers must have known about the difficulties, if there were any, and there were other men who could have filled this position and who had not worked in the previous 24 hours. There were a large number of men unemployed, and large numbers who were not working full time, who could have easily done the work and kept within the statutory limitation as to hours. I have had to deal with some of these matters, because, during the last Parliamentary Recess one of our miners' agents fell ill, and I was asked to take on the work in the mean-time—without pay, I may say. A case of this kind was brought to my notice, and I met the manager, who told me that in his opinion it was not a breach of the Coal Mines Act, but that he had the right to bring in a man if he so desired, so long as the two shifts did not happen on the same day—that, if a man had worked one shift and finished at 10 o'clock, he could be brought in at one o'clock on the following morning, because it was on another day. I had to call in the mines inspector, who told the manager that he was wrong, but there was no prosecution, but merely a warning.
This is going on throughout Lancashire, the colliery managers believing that they are immune from trouble so long as they do it in this way. I hope that the Secretary for Mines, if he wants smooth working in the mines, will help us in this matter. This provision has been put on the Statute Book for the purpose of limiting the hours of miners, but if it is to be allowed to become a dead letter, it will be of no use at all. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to clear our minds as to why he is not prosecuting. I do not think he will be able to do it, but now is his opportunity.

11.18 p.m.

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): I am much obliged to the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) for bringing this matter forward. He will, of course, understand that action
has to be taken in the circumstances of each case which have to be considered, and I have no complaint to make of any of his statements except that about his judgment as to what was or was not emergency work. Let me give the facts, as I understand them, from that point of view. The complaint is that, on the 17th and 19th May, colliers at the named colliery were worked two shifts each in 24 hours—a morning shift, eight hours out, and a second shift—and they had 24 hours' play the following day. Exactly the same was done during the next two days, but in that case the play day was Saturday. The manager considered it necessary that they should come back to take down coal to prevent an airway on the top of the conveyor face from closing in. That was his purpose, and the purpose of the work. He considered that that was work which the management could claim was exempted under Section 1 (2) of the Act of 1908.

Mr. G,. MACDONALD: Was that the inspector's report?

Mr. BROWN: I am dealing now with the facts, and with the point of view which I have to lay before the House as the basis of my decision. It was open to the manager, if the airway would have stood, to have brought the two men back on the play days, one of which, as I have said, was a Saturday. In this way it would have been possible to avoid a technical breach of the law, if such a technical breach was committed. But I want to make it clear that I differ from the hon. Member for Ince, and am not at all certain, after a careful examination of all the facts, that there was a technical breach of the law. The management claim that the circumstances were those of apprehended danger. This, of course, means that, if their claim was right, they would be exempt under Section 1 (2) of the Act of 1908. They also claim that this job was given to these two men because the manager thought them best qualified to do this work.
Had the management kept the men at work overtime at the end of their shift, there would have been no question whatever even of a technical illegality, and in allowing them to go home and come back later the interests of the men were apparently studied. They had a rest of eight hours between the shifts and a day's rest on the following
day. If the question is asked, as it was asked by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), why was it necessary to employ these two men, and could not others have done it equally well the answer is that that must, of course, be a matter of judgment for the manager. The manager thought they were the best men for the job, and it is impossible for me, and I think it is impossible for the hon. Member, to contend that he used his discretion unwisely. Undoubtedly, he was of the opinion that the two men would dig the coal off the airway, more satisfactorily and quickly than the men who were ordinarily available on the night shift. Those two men were ordinary coal-getters. The case that my hon. Friend has raised is not a parallel case because it refers to the regular necessity for dealing with falls on Sunday nights. The men in this case did not work overtime regularly but did it for this emergency. [Interruption.] The night shift workers of course, were at their work. I do not know what the practice may be in this mine but in many mines the workmen would object to repair workers getting coal at the face. Further, the two men were apparently willing to do the work and if it was illegal, they are also liable to prosecution and to a fine not exceeding 10s. for each offence It is often overlooked that illegal overtime is an offence on the part of the man as well as of the management unless he proves that, without default on his part, he was prevented from, returning to the surface owing to the means not being available. In this case that could not have arisen. Since my hon. Friend has raised the question of the feeling in Federation circles, the attitude of those who brought this complaint to the notice of the divisional inspector is definitely open to criticism, for the first complaint from them was dated 9th June, that is to say, three weeks after the incident took place

Mr. G. MACDONALD: It is a case for local investigation, which takes time. Some managers dodge. They do not readily give dates for interviews to miners' agents. It is not the fault of the Federation that there was delay.

Mr. BROWN: In the meantime one of the men concerned, as the hon. Member knows, had been dismissed on an
entirely different issue. It was only after failing to get him reinstated that the complaint about overtime was raised. That is my reason for saying that I think those who raised it on 9th June, allowing for what the hon. Member says, were open to criticism, especially as now I am told the feeling in the district has been so strong. [Interruption.] The hon. Member knows a good deal about briefing and he will appreciate that briefs are of all kinds. There are briefs that are arranged in order to put a case and there are briefs that are used to get all the facts concerned. I assure the House that I have done my best to get all the facts before coming to a judgment on the matter. It is wrong for the hon. and learned Member who spends so much time upon briefs to mention briefs in order to import prejudice into a discussion of this kind. The hon. Member for Ince knows that I have expressed myself in this House as much concerned about the effect of mechanised mining upon overtime as has been shown in the various cases brought to my notice by hon. Members. It was after reviewing all the facts of the case that I came to the conclusion that it was not a case where a prosecution would lie, and I think the House will see, if it reflects on what I have said and the facts I have brought forward, that there is force behind my contention that it is not a case in which a prosecution would lie. My hon. Friend invited me to say something about the general question of over-time. I will gladly do so.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: If there was danger apprehended in this case, it ought to have been removed at once in accordance with the regulations. There should not be any delay at all.

Mr. E. BROWN: That is the hon. Member's point of view.

Mr. WILLIAMS: No, Sir. It is a breach of the Act.

Mr. BROWN: I say again, that is the hon. Member's point of view. The issue before a prosecution is taken is whether or not there would be a case of actual illegal overtime, or whether or not there are circumstances which would make it advisable to make an exemption under Part I (2) of the Act of 1908. It is not possible to judge whether a thing is illegal really in the terms of the Act;
it is the circumstances in relation to the Act that have to be judged. May I say this, because the subject of overtime will undoubtedly come up again in the House—have shown that I have given and am giving the matter most serious consideration—that mechanised mining has increased the occasions when an emergency under Part I (2) of the Act of 1908 arises. On the other hand, it enables the men frequently to finish their work before the legal shift ends. His Majesty's inspectors have been watching these matters carefully, and in the absence of general complaints—I told the House that I have had no general complaints from the
Miners' Federation; the complaints have been only isolated—our information is that the overtime worked is a very small percentage of the total time worked. With few exceptions in the cases we have investigated—I am not talking of illegal overtime, but of overtime generally—it has been less than 1 per cent. of the total time worked. The House may rest assured and the hon. Member may rest assured that when there is good ground for prosecution it will be undertaken.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine minutes after Eleven o'clock.